Kerry's record

[Bamalaw92]

Here is John Kerry's illustrious record from 20 years of service, despite looking into the cameras, pointing his finger and claiming, “Once again, the president is misleading America. I have passed 56 individual bills that I have personally written.” Who is misleading who Mr. Kerry???:

S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming “to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.” (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects “to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources.” (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 – Oct. 28, 1989 “World Population Awareness Week.” (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew “World Population Awareness Week” for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 “Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.” (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 “National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)

Yep. That's it folks. Eleven. Eleven in 20 years. And such heavyweight issues too! World Population Awareness Week, TWICE!; Save the Dolphins!! Naming a federal building!!!! WOW!!!!!

http://factcheck.org/article282.html

 

[bamabake]

Dont make CoBama come here and correct you. Reading that list though.. it makes me feel...so enlightened, giddy almost. I think I just became a swing voter.

 

[bamabake]

bump

 

[COBamaFan]

no need to worry ...

No need to worry bamabake. I've only had one real run-in with Bamalaw92 (awhile ago). He generally keeps his facts straight ...

However, on this one he is picking and choosing (and misrepresenting what his source -- factcheck.org -- was actually saying). He decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 11 "bills passed". You'll notice factcheck.org also shows how Kerry arrived at his total of 56 "bills passed". It all depends on how you define "bill" and "passed."

Kerry used a more board definition of "bill" and "passed." Both are guilty of this sort of thing. Recall that Bush is still claiming that the vast-majority of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income families. He his using a very board definition of “vast-majority” and “low- and middle-income families.”

I will agree that it sounds like Kerry's reaching for 56, but its certainly more than 11.

Thanks for thinking of me bamabake.

 

[bandersnatch45]

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is......

A broad definition of "bill" and "passed"? a bill either passes or it does not. It may die in commitee or be voted down on the floor of the Senate but if it receives the proper number of votes it passes. No mystery. No what is "passed".

Also, I got a nice tax cut and only the most rabid of socialists would refer to me as anything but "middle income". Everyone I work with, middle income people all, received a nice tax cut. No questions or prevarications. The organization I work for employs over 1500 folks, all squarely in the middle income bracket and All got a tax cut.

Mr. Kerry can't get it straight as to how many bills he has gotten "passed" in the Senate. Bamalaw92's list is the closest thing we have seen yet to a comprehensive list.

On the other hand Mr. Bush apparently got it right as to who he gave a tax cut to. Unless of course those on the Left have a different definition of "middle income".

 

[Bamalaw92]

No need to worry bamabake. I've only had one real run-in with Bamalaw92 (awhile ago). He generally keeps his facts straight ...

Correction......I ALWAYS keep my facts straight! :biggrin:

However, on this one he is picking and choosing (and misrepresenting what his source -- factcheck.org -- was actually saying). He decided only show how Bush arrived at his total for Kerry of 11 "bills passed". You'll notice factcheck.org also shows how Kerry arrived at his total of 56 "bills passed". It all depends on how you define "bill" and "passed."

No I am not picking and choosing or misrepresenting. I suggest you actually read the entire article. Here let me help you with a few quotes:

When Kerry said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written" he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.

* * *

While Bush defined “bills” in the strictest sense, Kerry included bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions with no force of law, and even simple Senate resolutions that aren't even considered by the House. Kerry would have been more accurate to say he wrote 56 "measures" that passed the Senate, including 11 that became law.

* * *

Of Kerry's total, 24 were concurrent resolutions or simple Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming law.

* * *

Kerry's total also includes 10 Senate-passed bills that would have done nothing more than grant waivers to specific foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline despite a 1920 law requiring that only US-built vessels be allowed to operate between US ports. Because there were 10 different vessels, Kerry introduced 10 separate bills. All died in the House.

Also note that the figure of eleven is not MY number but that of the website. Bush claimed there were only five (which is correct using the proper definition of the word "bill")

Kerry used a more board definition of "bill" and "passed." Both are guilty of this sort of thing. Recall that Bush is still claiming that the vast-majority of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income families. He his using a very board definition of “vast-majority” and “low- and middle-income families.”

I am not sure what "board" definitions are, but I will agree that both sides use "broad" definitions in some instances and strict definitions in others. Even using a broad definition, as fact check did, the count is only eleven.

As for the tax burden, factcheck concludes that while Kerry's assertion that "the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden." is factually true, it's a smaller burden all around and the richest still pay the most. Factcheck further concludes that this ". . . is a good example of how facts that are literally true can be used selectively to create a misleading picture."

http://factcheck.org/article280.html

I will agree that it sounds like Kerry's reaching for 56, but its certainly more than 11.

Fact check disagrees with you: "Actually, we found eleven measures authored by Kerry have been signed into law, including a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991. . . . In a related article in January we quoted an Associated Press article that turned up only eight laws that bear Kerry's name. The AP's count omits these two House measures which technically don't bear Kerry's name and a private law (S.423) granting a visa and permanent residency to Kil Joon Yu Callahan that we are including in our count of 11."

 

[TexasTide]

Kerry makes Al Gore seem like a good choice.

Has there ever been anyone so unqualified representing a major party in a US Presidential election?

U.S. Grant is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that may be close but at least he commanded an army.

 

[Vertical]

Kerry may have meant to say that he sponsored 56 measures, but what he actually said was that he wrote 56 bills that passed. Which is not true, no two ways about that one.

He may have meant something else, but what he said is false. He can clarify himself anytime he wants. Why doesn't he? Because he knows the majority of people won't ever bother to look it up.

 

[Queasy1]

Even if you accept Kerry's proposition of 56 bills.....56 bills over a 20 year period in the Senate is pretty poor. Especially when you throw in his poor attendence record at intelligence meetings.

 

[Bamalaw92]

Even if you accept Kerry's proposition of 56 bills.....56 bills over a 20 year period in the Senate is pretty poor. Especially when you throw in his poor attendance record at intelligence meetings.

Well it wouldn't be poor if there were substance behind them. It would be almost three substantive bills a year. That's pretty good for a single senator, BUT look at the substance of the 56 even if you take Kerry's figures: a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991, 10 Senate-passed bills (each a separate bill for 10 different vessels) that would have done nothing more than grant waivers to specific foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline despite a 1920 law requiring that only US-built vessels be allowed to operate between US ports, and 24 concurrent resolutions or simple Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming law. Where are his efforts regarding health care, immigration, defense, intelligence, taxes, jobs, etc. etc. etc. In fact, of the elven he has actually had success with, only TWO have any substance behind them.

 

[bamabake]

Well it wouldn't be poor if there were substance behind them. It would be almost three substantive bills a year. That's pretty good for a single senator, BUT look at the substance of the 56 even if you take Kerry's figures: a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991, 10 Senate-passed bills (each a separate bill for 10 different vessels) that would have done nothing more than grant waivers to specific foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline despite a 1920 law requiring that only US-built vessels be allowed to operate between US ports, and 24 concurrent resolutions or simple Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming law. Where are his efforts regarding health care, immigration, defense, intelligence, taxes, jobs, etc. etc. etc. In fact, of the elven he has actually had success with, only TWO have any substance behind them.

world population awareness weeks

that one is really freaky.


Look it, he has no credibility when he talks about these issues. If one says he does point me to where I can look at something to judge him by. All the dems have is his word essentially and that changes from day to day.

 

[COBamaFan]

Bamalaw92:

I don’t think you got the tone of the article of factcheck.org right. It was saying that Bush and Kerry used different definitions of the word ‘bill’ and ‘passed’ – which is how they came to such different results. I run into this stuff all the time in my job (engineering) and I’m sure many other do as well. For example, you must be careful when you define even simple things like a ‘point’ or ‘line’ and very careful when you define something abstract, like say a ‘vector space.’ (To use a few examples from my job).

Because neither candidate strictly defined what they meant during the debate by ‘bill’ or ‘passed’ it was open to interpretation. That is what factcheck.org was so carefully pointing out.

Bamalaw92 & Bandersnatch45:

I’m sure you did get a tax cut. But when Bush claims that the “vast-majority” of the tax cut went to “lower- and middle-income” families, he’s being dishonest (not the first time). Only 13.7% of his tax cut went to the bottom 60% of families.

Also, 85% of families making $30,000 -- $75,000 would have been better off under Gore’s plan. But everyone making over $250,000 is better off under Bush’s plan.

The problem with your statistics, of course, is you’re only looking at income tax. Property tax is skyrocketing. Because other people know more about this then I do:

“By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.”

From: http://www.americanprogress.org

 

[Root4Bama]

I have to agree with BamaLaw on this one.

 

[TidalTime]

Here is John Kerry's illustrious record from 20 years...

I think your right on the money.

 

[Dr. Know]

The sad thing is Ketchup drew a paycheck for ......for......what I dont know, but pulled it for 20 years. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!

 

[IH8Orange]

COBamaFan:

I too am an engineer and understand what you are stating regarding terminology. As an engineer, one should interpret STRICTLY the information that is presented. There are standards that have been developed in terminology and requirements so that ambiguity is reduced. Leaving terms "open to interpretation" is the cause of many disasters.

Strictly speaking, a resolution is NOT a bill, but common usage now makes less distinction between the two. A Senate bill should be denoted by S.XXXX while resolutions are S.R.XXXX. A liberal(not the political usage of this term) interpretation can include both bills and resolutions in the term "bills". However, the Senate Manual for the 107th Congress explicitly refers to "bill and resolution" in many instances, so it is evident that they are NOT the same, officially.

However, I don't see how "passed" is open to ANY interpretation. Passed is a binary characteristic. There's no murky area at all. If it is passed by the congress, but vetoed and there isn't enough support to override the veto, it wasn't "passed". It must pass both legislative bodies and the executive to become law and to attain "passage".

 

[Bamalaw92]

Bamalaw92:

I don’t think you got the tone of the article of factcheck.org right. It was saying that Bush and Kerry used different definitions of the word ‘bill’ and ‘passed’ – which is how they came to such different results.

No I don't think YOU got the tone of the article. I clearly stated that BOTH Bush and Kerry got the figure wrong. The correct figure, 11, is what Factcheck determined was truthful given the best definitions.

I run into this stuff all the time in my job (engineering) and I’m sure many other do as well. For example, you must be careful when you define even simple things like a ‘point’ or ‘line’ and very careful when you define something abstract, like say a ‘vector space.’ (To use a few examples from my job).

You don't need to tell me about engineers. I have a degree in engineering. Many have been my clients are and have been engineers and I have advised the Board of Professional Engineers for years. Also, being intimately familiar with both professions, I can guarantee you that my profession, the law, is much more concerned and cognizant that even the smallest of words has definite meaning. Any 20 year lawmaker knows this too. Misuse is intentional misleading IMO. Regardless, we are not talking about abstract ideas such as vector space. We are talking about clearly defined words for very specific items and concepts - bills and passed.

Because neither candidate strictly defined what they meant during the debate by ‘bill’ or ‘passed’ it was open to interpretation. That is what factcheck.org was so carefully pointing out.

Yes, which is what I said to begin with and why they point out it was 11 by the best definition and how in their opinion Kerry was, in their own words, "padding the numbers".

Spin it all you like to, but even if you give Kerry the benefit of a "loose definition" and take all 56, only 2 had any substance. Where are all his groundbreaking laws???????

Bamalaw92 & Bandersnatch45:

I’m sure you did get a tax cut. But when Bush claims that the “vast-majority” of the tax cut went to “lower- and middle-income” families, he’s being dishonest (not the first time). Only 13.7% of his tax cut went to the bottom 60% of families.

It depends on your definition of "vast majority" and "lower to middle income" right? Also, it depends on what tax cuts one is referring to. If it is income tax cuts, then it is true. I love how you can defend your guy for being misleading and condemn Bush for being dishonest over the exact same type of deception. A tad hypocritical aren't we?

Also, 85% of families making $30,000 -- $75,000 would have been better off under Gore’s plan. But everyone making over $250,000 is better off under Bush’s plan.

Talk about distortions and lies. This is the biggest whopper yet!

The problem with your statistics, of course, is you’re only looking at income tax. Property tax is skyrocketing. Because other people know more about this then I do:

“By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.”

No actually I am not, and yes it is obvious that others know more about it than you do. But if you don't trust me, simply go here :
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=0

 

[COBamaFan]

Jeez, Bamalaw92, you did this last time. Calm down. Take a deep breath.

I not going to argue anymore about who got the tone right. We disagree.

Second, I wasn’t trying to “tell you about engineers” – whatever that means. Good for you for advising the Board of Professional Engineers “for years.” That’s a feather in your cap. What brought that comment on? If we’re sharing the number of engineering degrees we have, then I will be more than happy to tell you my number. Is that what you were after?

Maybe it wasn't clear to you, but I was merely using examples that were familiar to me to make my point. I wasn’t trying to say that engineers have to be more specific about the meanings of words then lawyers do. As you pointed out: lawyers would win that one. But engineers need to be clear and specific too and engineering is what I’m familiar with. So, if I use another example from engineering I’m not trying to “tell you about engineers” ok? Engineering is just what I happen to know.

You’re right, the words “bills” and “passed” are clearly defined words for very specific concepts, but so are “line” and “point”. And, yet, what someone means by “line” or “point” can be very different, depending on the context in which someone is talking about those concepts. Because neither Kerry nor Bush specifically said what they meant by “bill” or “pass,” it left the door open. And, no, that’s not what you said from the beginning. That’s what I said from the beginning.

Well, not being clear about what you meant by “bill” and “passed” isn’t quite the same (to me) as Bush’s dishonesty. And I don’t see you jumping all over Bush for lying about the tax cut, so you can join me on the hypocritical boat.

What I said about Gore’s tax plan is true.

You said: "... yes it is obvious that others know more about it than you do ..."

I bit condescending, aren’t we? I won’t respond to it.

 

[IH8Orange]

And, yet, what someone means by “line” or “point” can be very different, depending on the context in which someone is talking about those concepts. Because neither Kerry nor Bush specifically said what they meant by “bill” or “pass,” it left the door open.

This is why standards are defined specific to a particular context.

There's no reason for Bush nor Kerry to be required to explicitly define "bill" or "pass" because we KNOW the context in which they are speaking and can therefore be sure of what they are saying.

Someone needs to stand up and end this trend of deliberate ambiguity that is, in most cases, nothing short of an attempt to mislead those that are not familiar with the terminology. If the proper terminology exists, that terminology should be used and correctly so.

 

[bamabake]

This is why standards are defined specific to a particular context.

There's no reason for Bush nor Kerry to be required to explicitly define "bill" or "pass" because we KNOW the context in which they are speaking and can therefore be sure of what they are saying.

Someone needs to stand up and end this trend of deliberate ambiguity that is, in most cases, nothing short of an attempt to mislead those that are not familiar with the terminology. If the proper terminology exists, that terminology should be used and correctly so.

Dont start whith standards and CoB. He says that that standards are relative.
Therfore you comment is meaningless to him.