July 30, 2004

Let's Judge Kerry by his Record, as requested.
Posted by McQ

After listening to John Kerry’s speech, I went on line for a transcript. I scanned it looking for nuggets. Specifics. Plans. Not the platitudes, emotional appeals and zingers. As I went through the speech, I copied what I found in order to comment on them. For a 55 minute speech, I didn’t come up with a huge list.

I ask you to judge me by my record: As a young prosecutor, I fought for victims' rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority. When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.

And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to work to find the truth about our POWs and missing in action, and to finally make peace in Vietnam.

That’s it folks. He asks to be judged on his record yet all he offers as his accomplishments in the Senate are two votes and cooperation with John McCain?

19 years in the Senate and this is what he lists as his ‘record’. Pretty pitiful.

Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

Good and well said. I don’t believe it, but he gets credit for addressing what has been a common perception among the populace. I say I don’t believe it because of his record. Asking to be judged on it, I find nothing in his record or his “respected abroad” meme which leads me to believe this rhetoric.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

As I’ve talked about before, you don’t just order up special forces soldiers and poof, there they are. That’s not as easy a task as Kerry would have you believe. Secondly, our problem of an overextened force in Iraq is not lack of special forces soldiers. Its lack of infantry soldiers.

Again, based on his defense record, I don’t buy the sudden intererest in providing our troops with the newest weapons and technology. His record just doesn’t support the rhetoric.

Lastly, as a retired reservist, I take exception and offense at Kerry’s characterization of the use of National Guard and reservists as a “backdoor draft”. Reservists and National Guardsmen are volunteers who understand what they’re volunteering for and what the possiblity of deployment is ... especially those who’ve done so since September 11th. This is another in a long line of attempts by the left to characterize our soldiers, both active and reserve, as victims.

As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.
When I heard this I said out loud, “how?” Thankfully no one was around to hear that. I don’t believe John Kerry has a clue. Thus there is no “how”, just the inferrence that we aren’t deploying every tool in our arsenal, when, since the beginning, economic and military as well as law enforcement assets have been engaged in this fight. This is just empty rhetoric.
In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.

Decades in national security? This from a guy who at the height of the Cold War pushed for unilateral nuclear disarmarment, for heaven sake. Again, judging by his record, I’m not buying.

As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting 95% of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.

I wasn’t sure if the “As president, I will not evade or equivocate” was a laugh line or a serious line. The man is known for both evasion and equivocation. His record points to him being a master of both. “I only own American cars”, but oh, “my family” owns those foreign cars. The examples are legion

That having been said, I agree with his point that we shouldn’t be letting 95% of the container ships in without inspection. I’d argue the adequacy of protection for nuclear and chemical plants is debatable, and the final line is simply a throw-away line meant to jab Bush for something he has no repsonsiblity for .... the federal government doesn’t open and close firehouses in the US, local governments do.

As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford lifesaving medicine.

I think Dale mentioned his reaction to this and it pretty well mirrored mine. In effect Kerry is saying “I will not do anything positive to save a program you’ve come to depend on, because frankly it won’t crash and burn on my watch." There's no political capital to be gained here, because Kerry knows only two approaches are viable. Privitization or raising taxes through the roof. But since Kerry has no record of leadership on this issue or any other, it doesn't surprise me.

Of course the last bit is the typical “lets scare seniors half to death by threatening their access to medicine despite the fact that a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit I voted for is in place”.

First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing.

Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future.

Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward the companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong: in the good old U.S.A.

First, what are they?

Second, what does that mean?

Third, how nice, tax cuts for corporations.

Next, we will trade and we will compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against.

Hello tariffs, trade wars and sanctions on the US.

And we're going to return to fiscal responsibility, because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare and we will make government live by the rule that every family has to follow: pay as you go.

Well studies out there seem to disagree with Senator Kerry’s assertion here. For instance the National Taxpayer’s Union points out the following:

* Based on Kerry's promise to "pay for" every program he has proposed, U.S. taxpayers would each face an average additional $2,206 in higher taxes during Kerry's first year in office, and a cumulative increased tax burden of $6,066 over his first term.

* If Sen. Kerry's policy agenda were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $226.125 billion during the first year of a Kerry Presidency alone. * Despite nearly $36 billion in spending cuts, $734.62 billion of Kerry's spending agenda remains unaccounted for, and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt.

* Kerry has promised nearly $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, energy, and environmental handouts during his first term, including $2 million to restore voting rights to felons.

* Although Sen. Kerry claims Americans can look to his voting record when determining whether to trust his vow of fiscal responsibility, according to NTUF's BillTally and VoteTally reports, Kerry sponsored or cosponsored $182 billion worth of new federal legislation in 2003, and voted to increase federal spending by $466.5 billion during 2002. VoteTally figures for 2003 are unavailable due to Sen. Kerry's many absences.

* Kerry has announced only five cost-saving policy ideas out of a total of 70 policy proposals.

Hardly the “record” or the plan of a fiscal conservative who promises to balance the budget and cut spending.

And let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education.

Kerry’s claim is he can pay for everything, cut spending in half plus fund all the stuff above simply by rolling back one tax cut on 2% of taxpayers? It’s a no-go, its nonsense, its not possible. So where’ll he have to turn? Huge cuts in other discretionary spending (yeah, that’s likely) or raising taxes. His record points to the likelyhood that the latter will be his choice. So based on his record, again, I'm not buying.

One hopes, if he ever gets pinned down with a question concerning this he won’t evade or equivocate to the American people. His record, however, says otherwise.

Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals that they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.

A) What does this mean, i.e. set high standards and demand accountability from parents, teachers and schools? His record indicates that No Child Left Behind is something he’s most proud of since he pronounced it as “groundbreaking legislation that enhances the federal government's commitment to our nation's public education system ... and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system" when he voted for it.

B) How are you going to “pay” for the tax credit for college?

Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.

This one almost made me gag. The old “fraud, waste and abuse” canard. The promise of every wannabe political hopeful. "It'll be different when I'm in charge!" What this can only mean is he plans on muscling up on the bureaucracy by adding another layer to seek this “bad stuff’ out and end it. An efficient bureaucracy? Yeah, I’m sold.

I was also tickled by the “we’ll negotiate lower drug prices” through Medicare, but by the way in case we can’t get them, there’s always Canada. Sounded so, well, evasive.

We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have 3% of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for 53% of what we consume?

True but then the inference isn’t. The inference is we’re in Iraq because we’re dependent on ME oil. True its important, but as you see in the reference below, its only 23.5% of the total. We’ve spread our exports around with two of the largest exporters being to our north and south. So the attempt at inferring we’re totally dependent on ME oil is simply not true. Should we crank something up with Russia, we could most likely cut the ME out completely.

From January to May of 2003, the U.S. received 42.8% of its imported oil from OPEC nations and 23.5% from Persian Gulf countries. During that timeframe, Canada was the top exporter to the U.S., supplying 16.9% of our oil.


Moving on:

I want an America that relies on its ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family.

Then get behind nuclear energy, Mr. Kerry.

And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future — so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

So here’s where the inference bears fruit. We went to war for oil.

Incredible.

I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

This, at least to me, was one of the more amazing statements in the speech. Another gag-reflex moment.

Let’s be optimists?

His entire march to the nomination has been a litany of negatives. After just telling the crowd in the Fleet Center that the war with Iraq was wrong, soldiers are dying for oil, education is a wreck, the economy is in the tank and American’s are having to import their drugs and too much oil, Kerry now wants to be optimistic? I had to laugh.

But on the other side, after reviewing this list of supposed grievances and purported “plans” by Kerry, I had to wonder, if this is all he can come up with, maybe we all ought to be optimistic.

Overall grade? C-. Long on rhetoric, veiled charges and inuendo, short on issues or specifics.

Now, I understand that one of the purposes here was to introduce himself to the American people. My reaction to that was how could a person who was a Senator for 20 years not be known by the American people ... unless he had no record to run on and hadn’t shown any leadership during that time?

So I beg to differ with Mr. Kerry when he says “I ask you to judge me by my record”. He really doesn’t want that at all. He wants you to judge him on the facade he’s erected, the platitudes and vague plans he’s put out there and to vote for him because he isn’t George Bush.

It'll be interesting if the one actual plan he has works or whether people will actually take him at his word and judge him by his record.

TrackBack

Comments

Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.

Translation: I'll respond to attacks, not try to prevent them. Eventually, if France really really won't cooperate

Posted by: shark at July 30, 2004 11:23 AM

Nice write-up, McQ.
We pretty much agre as you'll see in my trackback.

Posted by: Bithead at July 30, 2004 11:41 AM

It scares the shit out of me when these guys talk about first responders to terrorism. It's like they're resigned to sweeping up the corpses from the next 911.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at July 30, 2004 12:36 PM

I don't a CinC who responds to attacks, I want one with the courage to prevent them in the first place. It doesn't do much good if we nuke the ME AFTER my family and I are dead; I want them dead before me. I want a CinC who makes it clear that we will go after you even before you get a chance to attack us. And if France et al. don't like it, too bad. They don't live here.

Posted by: Paul at July 30, 2004 11:12 PM

John Kerry has had 58 Bills with his name on them be passed through congress in those 19 years. He was a great Prosecutor, and LT Govenor... Get over yourselves & do the research.. He respects you as an American, even if your not a member of the right wing Christian Fanatics.. More than I can say for our current President. Who shows daily that he has no respect for anyone... His ego needs to be taken down a peg or two.. He is our employee. He reports to the People.. I'll take Kerry over 4 more years of Bush any day...

Posted by: Scarlet at July 31, 2004 08:35 PM

I take offense to your comment below... Reserves and National Guard are two separate things... NATIONAL GUARD are JUST that. They are supposed to STAY AND GUARD United States soil... They were not meant to fight on the soil of another country. Reservists are for the purpose of being called up in case of conflict. Reservists are not supposed to be called up that quickly. The Regular Active Duty Armed Forces are supposed to be built up prior to starting a War. Reserves are a RESERVE.....

Lastly, as a retired reservist, I take exception and offense at Kerry’s characterization of the use of National Guard and reservists as a “backdoor draft”. Reservists and National Guardsmen are volunteers who understand what they’re volunteering for and what the possiblity of deployment is ... especially those who’ve done so since September 11th. This is another in a long line of attempts by the left to characterize our soldiers, both active and reserve, as victims.


Posted by: Scarlet at July 31, 2004 08:49 PM

Paul, Unless you are a Member of the Armed Forces, (and if you are, I thank you)but unless you are, the President is not your Commander in Chief... If you are a civillian, then he is your elected representative. Elected to represent all the People of the United States...

Posted by: Scarlet at July 31, 2004 08:57 PM

Scarlet: I'll take 4 more years of a known quantity vs. 4 years of an unknown quantity in terms of leadership. Having your name on a piece of legislation is about as easy as signing a petition. That shows no leadership at all. Tell me the legislation he authored in those 20 years.

As for the National Guard, you're just flat wrong. On the 6th of June, 1944, the 29th Division of the Virgina National Guard assaulted Omaha beach. Guard division fought in Italy, France, Germany and all the way to Japan. And they've been in every conflict of any duration since. We had Guard units in the first Gulf War as well. Guard brigades are roundout brigades for active duty combat divisions which means they are an integral part of that division and train and deploy with it when those active divisions go into combat. Its been that way for quite a few years.

Air Guard units deploy overseas all the time. In fact much of our refuling, airlift capability and a large amount of our fighter force are found in Air National Guard units.

It'd be nice in the future, should you presume to enlighten us about this subject, if you knew what you were talking about first.

Posted by: McQ at July 31, 2004 09:53 PM

I think your thoughts are interesting, but maybe put your sources for the facts that you put. Also, I would love to see a little more research from everyone as to what Kerry's record really is. I certainly don't know. It is easier with Bush because you can see the claims and then check the jobs data or the GDP. Also, you can watch the standard indicators and see if people are experiencing a better standard of living.

But for kerry there is a record of 30 years or so and I see very little reviewing of his long-term stands. If he is so liberal, maybe someone can put some links that review his voting record (for more than the votes on going to war and funding the war please).

Posted by: Heath Weaver at August 3, 2004 06:14 AM