Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Kerry has a profound problem here. He has, as AG said, represented his constituents over the years. They were, of course, one of the most liberal constituencies in the country. If the USA were made up of Bostonians, he'd be a lock in November.

But now, he needs to appeal to a nation of voters who are quite a bit less liberal. So, he's been remaking himself as a moderate. He's NOT a moderate. But, that's why he can't simply say "yeah, I voted that way - that's how I and my people felt. Damn warmongering Reaganites . . ." That's why he's having problems getting past his post-VN activities - they can't be explained as the act of a moderate. They were entirely consistent with his own beliefs, and those of his MA constituents - but they do not sell well to the rest of the country.

(Forgot my last para: This is what Miller meant by, the votes define the man, not the campaigning. Kerry's campaigning as a moderate. His history of votes belies that. He's a hard-core liberal, no matter how desperately he tries to hide that.)

I'm lost here. Was Miller's list derived from the 1984 campaign literature or from a list of Kerry's Senate votes? The list of Senate votes was the subject of the FactCheck.org webpage, but as you pointed out, there's a difference between the list Slave posted and Kerry's voting record. And if they are different, and Miller's opinion is that the votes not the campaigning define the man - why is Slave's list relevant?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
why is Slave's list relevant?

The most-attempted defense of Kerry's votes regarding funding of military programs all center on "he had to vote that way because of what else was in the bills." Slave's memo makes it clear that defeating the funding for virtually every large weapon program was Kerry's explicit goal - it didn't just happen as an unfortunate byproduct of protecting baby seals.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
The most-attempted defense of Kerry's votes regarding funding of military programs all center on "he had to vote that way because of what else was in the bills." Slave's memo makes it clear that defeating the funding for virtually every large weapon program was Kerry's explicit goal - it didn't just happen as an unfortunate byproduct of protecting baby seals.

But as noted in the FactCheck webpage, the Kerry votes against the weapons systems were in 1990, 1995 and 1996, and Kerry voted FOR Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. Were the votes on those weapons systems held only in those three years?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
IV.) I'm guessing that we now hear that attacking Kerry's voting record cheapens all past political votes and voters, and that we have no moral sanction to do so.

Not from me, you won't. Or perhaps you're kidding and I'm whiffing. My point was that the world inside a legislature is considerably more complicated than "He voted no on infant formula!" and that the people here are smart enough to scratch beneath the surface even if the average voter isn't.

But if you simply wanted to say that no on defense spending won't play in Missouri, that is beyond cavil.

Shit, if Senators with aspiration started voting merely based on the fear their votes will have future symbolic value in close presidential contests, the quality of our government will slip even further. Trust me, neither side of the aisle wants to see the decisionmaking become even more superficial than it already is.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Not from me, you won't. Or perhaps you're kidding and I'm whiffing.

Kidding specifically aimed at you, in fact.

But if you simply wanted to say that no on defense spending won't play in Missouri, that is beyond cavil.

Bingo. His votes at the time were honorable, because they represented what he and his voters believed. But, he's trying to become a moderate for this election. He's trapped. This is why he hasn't wanted to discuss anything but Viet Nam.

Shit, if Senators with aspiration started voting merely based on the fear their votes will have future symbolic value in close presidential contests, the quality of our government will slip even further. Trust me, neither side of the aisle wants to see the decisionmaking become even more superficial than it already is.

Too cynical. If a Senator votes her conscience and belief and knowledge, it can't be held against her, if she is later running as a persona consistent with who she truly is and has been. The only people who have to fear what you describe are the people who want to play by the polls, stand for nothing concrete, and remake themselves as convenient. Were Kerry running today as the person he has been for forty years, he'd proudly display all of his votes. But that won't work for Kerry (Release 1.04).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
But as noted in the FactCheck webpage, the Kerry votes against the weapons systems were in 1990, 1995 and 1996, and Kerry voted FOR Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. Were the votes on those weapons systems held only in those three years?

Not sure. But, are you saying that Kerry campaigned hard in '84 using his professed desire to kill all those systems, won, and then went on to vote FOR them all? I mean, that memo seems pretty unequivocal.

[Replaced_Texan]

I am an adultress and hang out at other boards. I got a request and figured you guys might be able to help me out. I am not necessarily the best judge of this sort of thing:

• Needed: Republicans
  
  
  I know you're out there. Probably avoiding my left-leaning, socialist, universal healthcare-loving lj. However, I know you're out there. Floating in cyberspace. *waves*
  
  And I need your help. I know I said that I wouldn't delete the syndicated Republican blog from my flist until after the election but Dalythoughts blows monkey chunks.
  
  I'm sorry, I'm a candy-assed amateur but I really don't give a pooh about electoral college predictions. At least not enough to read up on them on a daily (daly ?) basis.
  
  So, if any of you out there, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever: if you know of a better conservative blog being syndicated on lj, please let me know (I'm looking to balance my karma: Margaret Cho on one side, GOP X on the other).

Any recs that I should send back to her?

ETA: She's Canadian. Dunno if that matters or not, but she may not be as in tune with the political system here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I am an adultress and hang out at other boards. I got a request and figured you guys might be able to help me out. I am not necessarily the best judge of this sort of thing:

• Needed: Republicans
  
  
  I know you're out there. Probably avoiding my left-leaning, socialist, universal healthcare-loving lj. However, I know you're out there. Floating in cyberspace. *waves*
  
  And I need your help. I know I said that I wouldn't delete the syndicated Republican blog from my flist until after the election but Dalythoughts blows monkey chunks.
  
  I'm sorry, I'm a candy-assed amateur but I really don't give a pooh about electoral college predictions. At least not enough to read up on them on a daily (daly ?) basis.
  
  So, if any of you out there, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever: if you know of a better conservative blog being syndicated on lj, please let me know (I'm looking to balance my karma: Margaret Cho on one side, GOP X on the other).

Any recs that I should send back to her?

"Flist"?

"lj"?

No hablo espanol, senorita.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Flist"?

"lj"?

No hablo espanol, senorita.

Flist=list of people she's reading

lj=acronym for the other community, and no you can't have my posting name there

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Flist=list of people she's reading

lj=acronym for the other community, and no you can't have my name

So it leaves me with the question - what does "syndicated on lj" mean?

Is this a limitation? Or are you merely asking for recs for good con blogs?

(ETA: People would look at me funny if I had your name.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Flist=list of people she's reading

lj=acronym for the other community, and no you can't have my name

tell her to go to instapundit - he links to all of the good ones, and some on the left as well.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
tell her to go to instapundit - he links to all of the good ones, and some on the left as well.

Yeah, if the question is simply, a good con blog, he's sort of the gold standard.

Instapundit.com

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
So it leaves me with the question - what does "syndicated on lj" mean?

Is this a limitation? Or are you merely asking for recs for good con blogs?

(ETA: People would look at me funny if I had your name.)

a lot of blogs are syndicated in the community. I'll just give her a list and she can figure out if they're syndicated or not. Most of the big ones and a lot of the little ones are.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not sure. But, are you saying that Kerry campaigned hard in '84 using his professed desire to kill all those systems, won, and then went on to vote FOR them all? I mean, that memo seems pretty unequivocal.

No, I'm sure he voted against SOME weapons systems, but I question Miller's contention that he specifically voted to kill everything Miller listed last night. As I understand it, you're saying that Slave's list proves that Miller was 100% correct.

Along these lines, as long as you're willing to enter into evidence FactCheck.org pages, this page address Slave's memo specifically.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=147

"And Republicans go too far when they claim that Kerry voted against such mainstay weapons of today's military as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot missile. These claims are misleading because they rest on Kerry's votes against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996. But none of those were votes against specific weapons systems. Kerry's critics might just as well say he was voting to fire the entire Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
tell her to go to instapundit - he links to all of the good ones, and some on the left as well.

Thank you! And thank you also bilmore!