Does any of this bother Kerry supporters...??

Particular in light of questions about other Kerry votes in Congress.

Quoting from Congressional Quarterly's "Politics In America 2000"

"Kerry has a reputation as a lawmaker with a sharp mind who sometimes loses his focus, a notion that certainly was not dispelled by the gushing 1998 cover story in American Windsurfer magazine entitled, 'Senator John Kerry -- The Windsurfer Who Could Be President.'

Many ardent Massachusetts supporters actually had hoped to see Kerry become president, and the senator had focused much of his recent legislative activity in quest of that goal."

This was back in 2000...the profile goes on to detail Kerry's increasingly centrist policies domestically...particularly on education (pro public school choice and charter schools) and crime (supporting 3 strikes and your out laws)

Between 1995 and 1997 his AFL-CIO voting rating went from 100% to 71%

And yet I read over and over of his trustworthiness and solid permanent liberal credentials. I'm not so sure, and apparently CQ wasn't either.

The funny thing is that when someone points out a position or policy of Dean's from the past, it's called 'ancient history'.

If you really want to know about Kerry's liberal voting ratings or his labor voting ratings, or his entire voting history, look for yourself at http://www.vote-smart.org, where you will find for instance this tidbit:

"2002 On the votes that the AFL-CIO considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 92 percent of the time."


Take a look for yourself, don't trust what I cherry-pick out of his record or what someone who is opposed to Kerry cherry-picks out of his record from a source that, I bet you don't have access to anymore than I do. Look at the facts for yourself and make up your own mind.

I'm still concerned about Kerry shifting with which campaign he's running...and apparently other political experts see that as well.

All you did was repeat your original characterization.

Of where I get my information.

You quote from Congressional Quarterly's "Politics In America 2000".

Just how long is this report? Is it protected by copyright? I was under the impression that CQ was public domain, but I'm no librarian so I don't have a copy to check. At any rate, you only quote two sentences, clearly fair use and DU rules would allow you to include more context. The rest of your post is your characterization of the report. Are we all supposed to drive to the library to find out what it really says and means?

All I said in my post is that people should make up their own minds instead of trusting the supporters of one candidate or another to think for them. I lumped both you and I together as biased sources. And you have interpreted that as a smear?

Congressional Quarterly is a for-profit press, one of the most respected covering government.

I could have included the comments that John Kerry simply didn't seem to have the "fire in his belly" to run for President in 2000...or concerns about his facial surgery...or concerns about the "little dig" to move the mailbox in front of his apartment building.

The article also lauded his Vietnam War stance and past legislative accomplishments.

This resource is available in nearly every sizable public library and nearly every academic library since it is considered a crucial reference resource in libraries.

I believe it is also available for pay online. Congressional Quarterly's website is

http://www.cq.com

And yes, I do expect that you can look it up at your library or online if you wish to read more.

No REAL Democrat representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party would be recognized by the Libertarian CATO Institute, let alone get its HIGHEST rating.

But you didn't answer my question about Kerry. I thought this thread was about him.

That's Kerry and Kucinich. Your spin notwithstanding, because Dennis can get cherry-picked to make him look like a raving rightwinger. Doesn't mean it's an accurate picture overall.

CATO was referring to. This election season is also clearly noting that the old Demo Party is no longer a player in nat'l politics.

The 'other' demo party is well represented by the Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman trio and their current support strength as well as the current strength of the DLC is represented in these polls.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

Mindlessly repeating "The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party", no matter how many times, is only going to convince the weakest-minded individuals -- except most of 'em will be voting for Bush.

CATO doesn't like Democrats or Democratic issues.

:puke: Seriously this is wrong, its interesting blm hes criticizing those 3 as like DLC lackeys yet the DLC trademark is pro big business right? yet CATO is probably even more. I am a proud member of the old time democratic party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Wellstone, and on and on.

CATO is very pro business and libertarian like and the DLC is pro business like too so in a way they are both pro business. The old democratic party is what I believe in, no not what you think pol, the old democratic party is an all around liberal party with men like Ted Kennedy, Wellstone, Kucinich, etc in it. I tell you what I am an all around liberal and I dont like the idea of kissing up to libertarian like groups on economics like CATO. I guess that makes me a DLC scrouge huh even though I hate the DLC just as much and the man I support heads the progressive cancus.

With Dean...and I've listened to him explain how and why he does occasionally change his stance.

I've not heard Kerry explain any of that...and have mostly only seen supporters proclaim how staunch Kerry's permanent liberal record is...and when I see a 71% support of AFL-CIO in '97, and a 75% in '99 - the futhest back the Vote-Smart link goes...then a sudden shift back up to 100% in 2001...I question what is going on, and I question reasons for shifts....particular since a candidate like Dick Gephardt kept a 100% rating the entire time.

I believe John Kerry does shift his stances depending on what office he is seeking which concerns me...and he hasn't addressed that. Political commentators expressing that concern about him is nothing at all new.

"We have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.22/news3.html

said he didn't "believe stopping the terror has to be a prerequisite for talking."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/elec04.prez.dean.mideast/

I've heard some Dean supporters try to explain it, but I haven't heard Dean's explanation of it. Could you please point us to a reference where Dean explains this change in position?

But could probably find one as quickly as you could find one explaining why Kerry voted with the AFL-CIO on only 3 of every 4 votes and then changed to every vote.

Howard Dean has explained multiple times that like a doctor he changes his mind if new evidence makes his past stance no longer the best one. Seems logical to me.

Dean explains 'how and why he does occasionally change his stance' but as soon as I give an example of a specific stance that he made a 180 degree change on, it turns out there is no explanation.

Just what is the specific stance you are claiming Kerry changed his mind on? Is a changing rating from the AFL-CIO all you have? It all depends on what issues were voted on in what years. So if Kerry agrees with the AFL-CIO on issues 1-99 and disagrees on issue 100, and in 1999 there are votes on issues 2,56, and 83, he'll get a 100% rating. If in 2000 there are votes on issues 2, 43, 72 and 100, he'll get a 75% rating. Without changing his stance on anything.

So I ask you: what are the issues that Kerry changed his stance on that we are talking about?

John Kerry does not consistently vote with other liberal colleagues in the Senate and the House but yet claims to be a staunch liberal.

You have a comparison with the voting records of Ted Kennedy and Dick Gephardt.

We have his vote against Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, and Dick Durbin on Iraq.

Why does he disagree with them?

I asked initially if Kerry supporters are concerned about any of this - obviously the answer (with some profanity thrown in) is yes.

Pick a specific issue and we'll talk about it. If you want to talk about the Iraq Resolution vote again, there are numerous threads in which to do so. However, I believe you started this thread claiming that Kerry was inconsistent in his support of labor.

If you don't want to vote for anyone who ever disagrees with Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, or Dick Gephardt, I'm not sure who you will be able to support. Is there a candidate who has such constantly fluid and changing stances that he seems to agree with everyone at one time or another? Perhaps.

On the most important issue to me...and I'm reading more evidence it's not the first time.

That's my point.

You can try and steer it away from that if you wish and that's fine.

A respected source that I read questioned his consistency, and I question his consistency based on recent history.

I think that should concern anyone supporting him, which is why I asked.

I dug deeper in response to your concerns and found other interesting material in the interest group ratings (which are often quoted to support John Kerry's candidacy).

You keep talking about Kerry's changing rating from the AFL-CIO. What labor issue has Kerry been inconsistent on?

And again, if your really have nothing to talk about except Iraq, I would be happy to compare the consistency of Kerry and Dean's positions. Although I think it might be more appropriate in one of the hundreds of threads on that topic.

And please stop with the insinuations that you have some evidence back your claims. Show it to us.

I have shown you all of the evidence I saw raising questions...I put it up here to ask if there was concern about it.

I have not looked further yet because I was raising the question first.

Excuse me, I was reading in a well-respected source - reported also reading an article referred to here by a Kerry supporter.

Do I need more to ask a question?

Apparently I need nothing more to provoke arch-defensiveness, insults and profanity...seemingly serious protestation.

I wish I had the writer from the Congressional Quarterly here so you could ask those questions, but I don't. I can do more research, but I haven't done it yet.

I have seen John Kerry supporters use his interest group ratings to promote him...just as both you and blm did in initial response to my question...but a further look at those didn't hold up.

Now you are pushing further because you don't like what that said, apparently. I wouldn't like it either.

My assertions here and questions are simply from 3 resources - AFL-CIO interest group ratings back to 1994 for the Presidential candidates currently serving as legislators - the profile of John Kerry in Politics in America (a respected political reference resource) and a biographical article from the Boston Globe.

I'm not pretending to have any more information yet, but it was enough to raise questions for me.

You could have responded simply saying it is not enough to base questions on, but instead you questioned my finding of the information, whether the interest group ratings were reported correctly, and then blm questions whether the interest group ratings mean anything at all - I guess the AFL-CIO can save some money and not publish them. And John Kerry need not use them in political advertising.

Sorry, but your motives are too clear for you to hide behind your posturing that you are asking an honest question. :eyes:


And what 'question' are you supposedly asking?

"Does any of this bother Kerry supporters...??"

It seems you've gotten your answer. If you are willing to hear it.

Kerry has always been for free and fair trade.

There are still many in the AFL-CIO who were for NAFTA.

of any of the candidates. Go figure.

American Conservative Union Ranking of Dem Canidates
Of course, lower is better. Congressional rankings are 2002, 2001 and lifetime. Numbers indicate the percentage of the time that the candidate voted "conservative". Wellstone's lifetime rating was 3%.

Dennis Kucinich 2002-0%, 2001-20%, Lifetime-13%

John Kerry 2002-20%, 2001-4%, Lifetime-6%

John Edwards 2002-30%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-15%

Dick Gephardt 2002-8%, 2001-13%, Lifetime-12%

Joe Lieberman 2002-20%, 2001-28%, Lifetime-20%

Bob Graham 2002-20%, 2001-16%, Lifetime-18%


http://www.conservative.org/default.asp

I was talking about the AFL-CIO...would you respond to that?

And why are we averaging over time when the concern expressed is that Kerry shifts in individual years or periods depending on what he is thinking he will run for?

Do you happen to have Kerry's ratings from the last THREE years to evaluate so you can PROVE your theory that he is MORE conservative now?

And you did not read here a theory that I have of him being more conservative now.

Please read my post...my concern is that he shifts based on what election he is preparing for...backed up by CQ. I did not make this up...they wrote it and reported it.

When he was considering running for President in 2000, his legislative concerns seemed to shift to the center particularly domestically in education and crime as I mentioned above.

I specifically AM NOT talking about support averaged over time.

I am talking about shifting positions expediently.

Please address that if you wish to address my thread and concern.

you haven't said anything about any issue positions where Kerry changed his stance. All you have done is point out that Kerry doesn't always get the same percentage rating from the AFL-CIO every year (if you don't understand the distinction, see post #18). I'm not saying Kerry has never changed his mind -- but if you are claiming he has changed a position, please enunciate what that position and change was so we have something concrete to discuss.

By the withering attacks in the national press by John Kerry and Howard Dean changing opinions and lacking consistency.

I used library resources to read more about John Kerry...just as I read a lengthy Boston Globe bio. about him when I was led there by an individual posting here.

The more I read about Kerry the more concerns I have.

CQ questions his consistency on issues.

The Globe brought up lots and lots of personal baggage that could hurt in a national campaign if the other side chooses to make those items issues.

All of this in the face of continuous posts here lauding him as smarter, more traditionally liberal, and more electable than anyone else.

Printed resources that I find continually question that, and in resources that don't seem to have an ax to grind. That's why I'm asking the questions.

I find the attacks on Howard Dean disingenuous in light of Kerry's record (as compared with our other candidates) and questions raised by sources I consider very reputable. Feel free to seek sources to slam the reputation of Congressional Quarterly if you wish.

One more time: What are the specific issues or positions that you say Kerry has changed his stance on?

Just tell us, so we can discuss it. Let's get into the issues and have a debate -- not just a blanket characterization.

Just like the research I've done so far.

and pushed by the Clinton and Gore White House. You act as if Kerry controlled what legislation came up for a vote and when.

Pure horseshit.

Who happened to be running for President...you can't dispute that. That's pretty black and white, and I think something which Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards would be happy to point out.

voting patterns.

By your standard of cherry picking, Kucinich is far right winger.

Funny you have no qualms with Dean getting the HIGHEST rating of all the Democrats from the CATO Institute during that same timeframe.

Presumably the legislators were voting on the same issues...and Dennis Kucinich had 100% and 90% ratings from the AFL-CIO - that's far right?

Again, Kerry's overall rating for the past 3 years is lower than any of these candidates except for Joe Lieberman.

If you're completely comfortable with that, fine. I'm not.

And why not lay off the personal insults and profanity? They impress no one.

and more liberal afterwards to run against Gephardt?

Has NOTHING to do with specific votes that came through from Congress and Clinton. OK. Gotcha.

I am quite sure I am one of the less profane posters on this board.

That's what I read in my source...

It's fine with me if you want to marshal your resources and fight Congressional Quarterly.

Again, I didn't make it up, and I didn't stoop to personal insults or profanity...unlike you.

in your posts. Why whine when someone questions your questionable account of Kerry's labor record?

No taking you up on personal attacks, sorry.

I have. You have no room to act sanctimonious in this thread.

I'm waiting

supporting Kerry. You call me vicious when my reply was not at ALL vicious.

helleborient (490 posts) Wed Oct-01-03 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. And OMG...he was a Republican in the past!
Ummm...blm...why are you castigating Dean for gaining support from past Republicans on one thread and celebrating for Kerry here??
I welcome past Republicans and if Ambassador Wilson wants to indicate he is a Democrat and supports Kerry - great....or, do you think he's "up to mischief"???? 
 
blm  (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-01-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Your premise is wrong. Those are current Republicans
who are switching to vote for Dean in the primary and then switch back. There are also Republicans who are sending money in hopes Dean wins the nomination. I also acknowledge that there are other Republicans who sincerely prefer Dean's centrism.

What's your damage? I'm celebrating that the intel community is supporting Kerry AGAINST Bush. Beers was always a Democrat, and it sounds like Wilson was, too. I'm celebrating the fuller exposure of the BFEE. Why aren't you? 
 
helleborient (490 posts) Thu Oct-02-03 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Thanks for the unfounded assumptions..a frequent attack tactic of yours
I'm all-out in support of exposure of Bush and the White House tactics.
I said absolutely nothing to say I wasn't in support of that..but you made a nasty, vicious assumption.
Par for the course...you've done it in the past as well. 

blm  (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-04-03 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. YOUR attacks on me are sweetness and light?
My replies to you are civil and and much less personal.  

And what positions are you saying Kerry changed his mind on? (Again, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind, as long as you are honest about it and not pandering.)

Now you've accused Kerry of being inconsistent, and you've accused blm of using profanity in post #30.

The latter charge is clearly false. What does that say about your credibility on the other charge?

Go ahead and support her insults and profanity...at least that is consistent.

My posts are rarely profane. And they are based on real information, not YOUR conjecture that Kerry is anti-labor and only pretending to be pro-labor.

I think that Sweeney and McEntee have a clearer view of Kerry than you do.

If you keep making these vague insinuations and characterizations, when are you going to find the time to do your research? :eyes:

Were about focus, not specific issues. His focus seems to shift, represented by what issues he works on and the interest group ratings.

I will do research because I am curious.

The links posted by duder are more of the same of what I found.


Never ever again will I see Kerry supporters as lacking in vehement nastiness, goading, and defensiveness. Welcome to what you say about Howard Dean supporters.

Here is the record of the ratings: (I don't have 98 and 99)

Kerry 94-88% 95-100% 96-86% 97-71% 00-75% 01-100% 02-92%
Lieberman 94-71% 95-100% 96-86% 97-29% 00-80% 01-93% 02-92%
Gephardt 94-89% 95-100% 96-100% 97-100% 00-100% 01-100% 02-100%
Kucinich 97-100% 00-90% 01-100% 02-100%
Edwards 00-75% 01-100% 02-100%

Another comparison, the senior senator from Massachusetts:

Kennedy 94-88% 95-100% 96-100% 97-100% 00-86% 01-100% 02-100%

I don't recall much NAFTA legislation over the last 3 years...

Why is Kerry's average rating over the last 3 years reported lower than everyone but Joe Lieberman? And why is there more flux in it over time than anyone but Joe Lieberman?

My resources are CQ's Politics in America 2000 and the VoteSmart web site.

What are the positions that you are claiming Kerry changed his stance on?


See post #18 for a concise explanation of the fallacy of your AFL-CIO ratings argument.

that question if you will quit promoting John Kerry's ratings "over time" - you might have noticed my post pointing out the fallacy in that.

It may not be a change in position, but support for public school "choice" and charter schools along with support for 3 strikes laws are hardly liberal stances.

I'd love to talk about it. As a librarian, we know you should have no problem doing the research.

We'll be waiting...

2000 was China trade and 2002 was the Andean Trade. He's always supported having environmental, labor and human rights regulations as part of these trade agreements.

Kerry's "liberal credentials" may have been exaggerated by some of his supporters.

Bypassing Kerry, Shaheen, Gore picks New Englander
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20000807/FP_004.htm

Sen. Lieberman is a slightly more conservative pick than Sen. Kerry, who nevertheless has moved towards the political center over his time in office, according to Debra Kozikowski, vice-president of the state Democratic party.

"He's (Lieberman has) got a good sense, uses words well, and delivers in a way that makes me think he's sincere. He's certainly a strong Democrat," she said. "What we perceive as conservative here in Massachusetts is probably more in line with what the rest of the country thinks is liberal. But John's not exactly a flaming liberal himself."

Kerry needs to shed liberal tag
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/6711331.htm

Francis Marion University political analyst Neal Thigpen, a Republican activist, suggests it is somewhat unfair to tar and feather Kerry as a flaming liberal from Massachusetts. If you analyze the senator's entire voting record, you would find him to be "moderately liberal."

Moving to the right: John Kerry cozies up to conservatives and state democrats look for a centrist strategy. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/daily/documents/02652903.htm

If John Kerry wants to be president, then he must convince people that he’s not just another Massachusetts liberal. That motivation may be, at least partially, behind his recent praise of the conservative think-tank, the Beacon Hill Institute, which likes to call itself "pro-free market" Kerry recently wrote to the non-profit, anti-tax, and officially-non-partisan, organization in praise of its recent study, Metro Area and State Competitiveness 2002.

state Democratic party report a shift in Kerry's focus to the center if it weren't true?

When it comes to Kerry he's flexible and so it's difficult sometimes to distinguish what's real and what's just the image presented, imo. In all fairness though, I'd place Kerry slightly left of center about the same as Dean.

like, all of them? we see where ignoring half the people that didn't vote for you got bush... in issues where environment, education, the arts, vets, women's issues, civil rights, etc are concerned-- issues all important to dems-- he has been consistant. as the environment domestically and internationally changes, don't you think, like dean does, that it is good to change with the times somewhat? he has never abandoned traditional democratic ideals. where it is important that both sides work together for the best outcome for the you.s., is that something to trash kerry for?

It's difficult to please everyone:

'Kerry refused to meet with his own Western Massachusetts constituents when we asked to meet with him to discuss his position - before voting for the war resolution. He refused to meet with us and then he closed his Springfield office after he voted for the war because he didn't want to hear from us. Didn't want to hear of our disappointment. I'm not voting for someone like that. Give me Kucinich or give me Dean. In fact, Kucinich is the only candidate running who voted against the War Resolution and against the misnamed "Patriot Act". Give me Kucinich.'
http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=63

It seems that with one candidate there are those claiming he is not what he is now because look at what he did then, but one could easily suggest that the other candidate is not what he was then because look at what he is now. One may be moving left and one may be moving to the right but as I said before, I'd place them about the same. Voting records alone are not enough to judge as I'm sure most on DU are aware of because they can be for show. Also as you've said, Kerry was representing the people of Mass. which leaves unanswered whether Kerry's record would be more conservative if he represented a more conservative state.

I think that we agree that neither candidate should criticized for changing with the times as circumstances may dictate. Neither candidate should be criticized for working with conservative think tanks if it should provide a positive benefit to their constituents either. Running around posting that Kerry is a centrist that praises conservative think tanks would be trashing him by word association and while one might find some truth in the statements, it's could very well be a false representation. All of the candidates represent "democratic ideals" albeit in different degrees in some areas. It's the differences in those areas that one feels are important that makes for the choices. One should do their own research on the candidates from several sources since those differences are sometimes blurred unrealistically by supporters and opposing supporters of candidates here on DU. Myself, I don't put much stock in the labels.

All you've done is post some articles in which Kerry is labeled and characterized different ways by different people.

Perhaps that'll work with the sheeple, perhaps not. But here at DU the folks are smart enough to make their own minds up about a candidate based on the candidates record and statements. Do we really need someone else to tell us whether Kerry is more liberal than Dean or Lieberman? It's just a label anyway. It doesn't matter as much as the actual record.

Maybe I missed it, but I still don't know the explanation for the 71% (admittedly a blip). My guess is it is either environmental (a common foe of labor) or free trade. Kerry definitely believes in free trade, but his NAFTA amendment shows his commitment to labor and especially the environment.

As for the Windsurfer piece, it was the article that really sold me on Kerry. Specifically, his discussion of religion and politics. Tell me you don't find this inspiring:

-----

"Spirituality is a fundamental for us. I mean, it's the-it is the overpowering, driving foundation of most of the struggles that we go through here on earth, in my judgement. I am a believer in the Supreme Being, in God. I believe, without any question in this force that is so much larger and more powerful than anything human beings can conceivably define.

I think the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about black holes and the expansion of the universe and the more we learn what we don't know about: our beginnings and-not just of us, but the universe itself, the more I find that people believe in this supreme being.

I'm a Catholic and I practice but at the same time I have an open-mindedness to many other expressions of spirituality that come through different religions. I'm very respectful and am interested-I find it intriguing.

I went to Jerusalem a number of years ago on an official journey to Israel and I was absolutely fascinated by the 32 or so different branches of Catholicism that were there. That's before you even get to the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

I have spent a lot of time since then trying to understand these fundamental differences between religions in order to really better understand the politics that grow out of them. So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another.

So I really wanted to try to learn more. I've spent some time reading and thinking about it and trying to study it and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value system roots and the linkages between the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that connects us-and really connects all of us.

And so I've also always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself. I think it's all an expression that grows out of this profound respect people have for those forces that human beings struggle to define and to explain. It's all a matter of spirituality.

I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it's there. I think it's really intriguing. For instance, thinking about China, the people and their policy-how do we respond to their view of us? And how do they arrive at that view of us and of the world and of life choices?

I think we have to think about those things in the context of the spiritual to completely understand where they are coming from. So here are a people who, you know, by and large, have a nation that has no theory of creationism. Well, that has to effect how you approach things. And until we think through how that might effect how you approach things, it's hard to figure out where you could find a meeting of the minds when approaching certain kinds of issues.

So, the exploration of all these things I find intriguing. Notwithstanding our separation between church and state, it is an essential ingredient of trying to piece together an approach to some of the great vexing questions we have internationally."

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/mag/back/issue5.5a.html

<>

The article tries to say Kerry had a recent centrist shift, yet the crime bill in question was passed in 1994. Hardly some recent shift for political purposes. In any event, he is against 3 strikes laws, but voted for the Crime Bill because it had strong gun control and was the cops on the street which he supported. He also sponsored the Innocence Protection Act which would require DNA testing for all federal executions. He also opposes mandatory sentencing, so he hasn't compromised his liberal principles at all. He just voted for a generally good bill that did help reduce crime.
http://issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

In the same way, he voted for NAFTA and China trade, which hurts his labor record. But if we want to engage the world and help other countries begin economic reform so citizens begin to move out of poverty, you have to start somewhere. His Amendments would have included environmental and labor regulations, but that doesn't count in the way votes are considered. Of course, there are some unions who want to drill in the ANWR too, I suppose we ought to hold that against Kerry's labor record too.

I also read a quote about some sort of pandering to the families of Vietnam POW/MIA's, which is hysterical considering the amount of time he and John McCain put into the Vietnam Bilateral Trade agreement which normalized relations in Vietnam and allowed people to learn more about what happened to their loved ones. I bet he lost AFL-CIO points on that too.

These little back-biting snippets just don't hold up when you actually look at the work he's done since he was a prosecutor and see the consistency from then to now.

those ratings are useless to me unless I know what they were based on, and how others fared on whatever votes were involved.

yada-yada-yada

And they are both leading in the polls. The cream rises to the top.

it is possible to make an argument that won't fit on a bumpersticker...if you try.

Of course, you've also made a totally false characterization of Kerry's record.