John Kerry Is #1

[Airedale1]

NUMBER ONE: KERRY RANKED 'MOST LIBERAL' IN SENATE ROLL CALL VOTES, TOPS KENNEDY, CLINTON

NATIONAL JOURNAL on Friday claimed Democrat frontrunner John Kerry has the "most liberal" voting record in the Senate.

The results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

NATIONAL JOURNAL's scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

"To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops," NATIONAL JOURNAL reports.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

The D party never ceases to amaze me. They are in the process of nominating a socialist who will have no hope of defeating GWB, let alone making GWB behave. GWB can move even more left with no worries. AT least Sceamin' Howie respected gun rights.

 

[J Jones]

They are in the process of nominating a socialist who will have no hope of defeating GWB, let alone making GWB behave.

Folks said similar things about Clinton. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

 

[capt_happypants]

Deep within the bowels of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Karl Rove just yelled out,

"Fire mission! Target is uber-liberal Massachussetts Senator. Request Hotel Echo and Willie Pete! Fire for effect! Fire for effect!"

 

[Art Eatman]

Included in today's email of "The Daily Reckoning" (a contrarian investor newsletter) was the following:

>*** And now this about "Lucky Jack Kerry" from a source
>we're not sure we can reveal, said to be a retired Rear
>Admiral:
>
>"I was in the Delta shortly after he [Kerry] left. I know
>that area well. I know the operations he was involved in
>well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used. I know the
>equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I
>spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats),
>Kerry's command.
>
>"Here are my problems and suspicions:
>
>(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and
>collected, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple
>hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked
>with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the
>River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast,
>and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a
>commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could
>draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major
>rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot
>areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.
>
>(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor
>that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was
>putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head
>on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost
>always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. At
>least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the
>three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months
>before the end of his tour. Fishy.
>
>(3) The details of the event for which he was given the
>Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was
>fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the
>launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with
>the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots
>Charlie, and retrieves the launcher. If true, he did
>everything wrong.
>
>(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put
>your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40
>has the ballistic integrity of a Frisbee after about 25
>yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach
>and begin raking it with your .50's.
>(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50
>caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The
>rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after
>him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just
>flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on
>earth, and you wanted some daring do in your after-action
>report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules
>against that, too.
>(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of
>standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a
>boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple. If you had
>somebody on the beach your boat was defenseless. It
>couldn't run and it couldn't return fire. It was stupid and
>it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and
>reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving
>a boat during or after a firefight.
>
>"Something is fishy.
>
>"Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court
>martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple
>people killed by running across the bow of a Jap destroyer)
>who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get a good tan,
>collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where
>lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months
>early, requests separation from active duty a few months
>after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heroes
>don't sell well in Massachusetts in 1970 so reinvents
>himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with
>the cameras running to jump start his political career,
>gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and
>Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds
>up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against
>every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after
>the Wall came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big
>mistake since that turned out well, decides not to make the
>same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops,
>that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really
>didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow
>him to go to war.
>
>"I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering our
>flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in
>Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some
>facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut
>it's wildly inflated. And fishy."

This sort of stuff is gonna dog Kerry's footsteps through the summer campaigning, and wouldn't be an issue except that the attack on Bush opened the door for it.

Looks like a wild and emotional political campaign...

Art

 

[Daedalus]

AT least Sceamin' Howie respected gun rights.

Dean supports the AWB, supports closing the "Gun Show Loophole" and a host of other anti-gun legislation. How did he get this get this kind of RKBA street cred

 

[gburner]

"John Kerry Is # 1."

He looks and smells more like #2 to me.
Flush twice, spray some deoderizer and leave the fan on.

 

[Bruce H]

No John Kerry is a big pile of straming, stick to your shoe, #2. As Art outlined above he is just too perfect with his record. This is ticking like the Jeopardy clock.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

How did he get this get this kind of RKBA street cred

Compared to other Dems, Dean, based on his tenure as Gov. of Vermont, looks like Charleton Heston. I do not agree with, nor would ever subscribe to, nor support in anyway, anything Dean is...is. Just a comparison of the continuum of the party of gun grabbers.

 

[J Jones]

What is Kerry's background, pre-Vietnam, to allow him to get preferential treatment while in-country and rack up a butt-load of questionable fruit salad for his dress whites?

Was his daddy somebody big? Is he an illegitimate Kennedy?

 

[Airedale1]

by Daedalus........Dean supports the AWB, supports closing the "Gun Show Loophole" and a host of other anti-gun legislation. How did he get this get this kind of RKBA street cred

As folks here in New England who support the RKBA are well aware, VT gun laws are the way they are in spite of Gov. Dean, not because of him.

 

[greyhound]

They are in the process of nominating a socialist who will have no hope of defeating GWB, let alone making GWB behave.

Not so fast, in my opinion.

There's an awful lot of people that will be voing AGAINST the President, as opposed to FOR Kerry.

Don't misunderestimate the "Anybody But Bush" crowd.

Stupid leftists.

 

[HunterGatherer]

AT least Sceamin' Howie respected gun rights.

What PAOLO721 said.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I retract any and all statements about Screamin' Howie. I do not now, in the past, or in the future want to be thought of as, labeled as, or even be remotely tied to, HOWARD DEAN. I laughed at him, scorned him, and laughed some more.

Be it so noted

 

[HunterGatherer]

 

[general]

Johnny "Cease Fire" Kerry

Now lets hear from Mr. "Cease Fire" himself.......

From the Office of Senator Kerry

Cease Fire

Newark Star-Ledger
Monday, April 30, 2001


The seemingly endless acts of violence in our nation's' schools have left Americans even more concerned about the safety of their children in the place where they spend most waking hours of the day. But it remains to be seen whether we're willing to respond to that concern in a way that does more than raise public anxiety. Our country has long suffered a polarized debate over guns marked by the false choice of crime control and personal safety on the one side and personal freedom on the other. Where listening and good faith efforts at compromise are desperately needed, rhetoric and rancor have been easy - and destructive - substitutes. The frustrations of that debate do not compare to the suffering of the victims of gun violence and their families. It's long overdue that we bridge the ideological divide and create effective models for compromise -- so that our childrens' safety is no longer compromised. A new, more thoughtful approach might well yield the most important dividend of all: it could save lives. Attorney General Ashcroft has reiterated that he believes every gun in the country should be equipped with a trigger lock -- and that President Bush would like to see these locks distributed rapidly around the nation as they were in Texas. The basis for compromise exists. We propose that we begin to repair the frayed edges of dialogue by starting from that goal we all agree on – safety -- and taking the first step not just of distributing gun locks, but of ensuring the safety of these protective devices more and more parents are turning to as a way to keep their children safe. In 43% of households with children, there is a gun in the home. 10,000 times each year, a child picks up and fires a loaded gun, resulting in about 800 deaths. Most parents recognize the dangers of mixing firearms with young, curious children, and they take common sense precautions to make sure their children do not have access to guns -- which is precisely why, increasingly, many parents are relying on safety devices like gunlocks to provide an extra measure of protection if one of their children gets a hold of a gun. Police departments are handing out free gunlocks, and President Bush has talked about expanding these programs on a national scale. Today there's a disconnect between the promises of gun locks and their ability to meet protect us: the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently found that in too many cases, gunlocks fail to perform as they should. When the CPSC tested 32 gunlocks from 10 different manufacturers they found that most, representing a cross-section of the industry, could be opened without using a key. Some could be opened with no more than a paper clip, a pair of tweezers or even a whack on the side of a table. One model still allowed the gun to be fired with the gunlock installed over the trigger. Today's gun-locks are often not the deterrent a parent can count on to keep their children safe. Hundreds of thousands of parents may be living with a false sense of security. In a gun debate too often polarized, today's new false choice would be to either abandon gun locks and insist again on gun control efforts opposed by many in Congress, or merely invoke personal responsibility and hope that the market will eventually deliver gun locks that work. The truth is, we can do better – we can embrace a nonideological solution that helps to protect children today and gives hope that tomorrow we can create a new consensus on gun issues. We need a national safety standard to ensure gunlocks will in fact prevent a child from gaining access to a firearm. Unlike other safety devices such as smoke alarms or fire extinguishers, gunlocks do not have to meet any government or industry testing requirements. There are a dozen safety standards to protect a child from a dangerous toy, but there is not a single safety standard for a gunlock. As a result, parents cannot be sure the gunlock they are using will really work - and that must change. Bipartisan legislation in the Senate -- the Kerry-DeWine bill -- would give the CPSC expedited authority to set a mandatory safety standard for all gunlocks sold or distributed in the United States. A mandatory standard would have the force of law and would allow the CPSC to fine companies that fail to meet the standard and allow the government to stop substandard gunlocks from coming into the United States. It would be a common sense first step in a new debate on safety, not guns or the second amendment. Gunlock are not substitutes for responsible parenting, and no gunlock should be the only method of keeping a weapon away from a child. But parents should be able to rely on a safety device like a gunlock as their last line of defense. A mandatory safety standard for gun locks isn't glamorous or ideological -- not the front page news of gun politics - but it would help ensure that the failure of a gunlock in the hand of a child is not front-page news in the future. Making gun locks safe – and making them widely available – is one answer we should all be able to support.
---------------------
You got that? Do you "Feel Good"? For the Children?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Do you see the development of the argument.
Our children are important.
Guns and children do not mix.
Gunlocks prevent children from accessing guns.
Even GWB is for gunlocks.
Gunlocks are good.
But the gunlocks are ineffective.
We need better gunlocks (for the children).
CPSC MUST regulate said gunlocks (for the children).

This is how it happens, people. Then the Hildebeast or Red-Nose Kennedy will come behind this and demand that all guns be sold with this GOVT-APPROVED gunlock. Then that every firearm be equipped with such a gunlock under penalty of law. Then CPSC will never find a lock that is GOOD enough. Or the approval process will cause the successful candidates to cost a bunch. Or the design criteria will make it look like a kevlar mini-safe, a holster with a combination.

Then they will say, why do you need a gun?
You can not carry a gun on your person or in your car.
You can not possibly access a "properly" secured gun in your house in time to make a difference in defense.
So, since you can no longer defend yourself with a gun, then guns only exist for lawbreakers and offensive uses.
Then DiFi stands up and says "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

 

[hnm201]

Does anywone know where Kerry get his stat that says "1 in 9 police officers are killed with assault weapons"? I'd like to know. It's a curious way to say that "9 of 9 police officers are killed by criminals."

 

[Sean Smith]

I'm kind of surprised that Kerry has gotten this far. He was the most hard-left Democrat in the running by a long shot, not Dean. Dean acted radical and crazy, but his record was moderate for a Democrat. Kerry has been at the forefront of the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party for the last 30+ years. Only his special-interest sluttiness "moderated" any of his voting.

Republicans hated Clinton because he won, and feared Dean because (until he went mental in public) he could have won. But neither one really plumbed the red depths of the socialist-in-all-but-name faction of the Democratic Party. Once he wins the Democratic nomination, he's exceptionally vulnerable based on his voting record. He has somehow managed to be a hard-left, 100% anti-RKBA voter, yet be wildly inconsistent and flip-flopping at the same time. He's pro-war (voted for it), but anti-war (voted not to fund it). He complains about intelligence failures under the Bush administration, but has voted against practically every funding increase for the various intelligence agencies. He's voted against almost every increase in military spending, but now says on the campaign trail that he'd increase the size of the Army. He thought that expelling Iraq from Kuwait wasn't a sound basis for an invasion (voting against Gulf War I), but thinks a political tummyache in Hati is a picture-perfect justification for American preemptive action.