What determines who will be "leader of the free world" for the next 4-years? While many things factor in...none are more important than your vote. And with national elections less than 2-months away, the choice presented before the American electorate has rarely offered more divergent candidate worldviews.

This month we review the accomplishments and positions of the two men who are vying for the office of President of the United States. We begin with excerpts of President Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, followed by his biographical summary. Then we consider whether govenors make better presidents than senators do, with an insightful article "Can Kerry Execute" that appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Pete Du Pont. Last, we provide a comprehensive look at Senator Kerry's voting record during the course of his 20-year tenure in public service.

We're confident that after reviewing this material you will have more than enough data at your disposal to cast a ballot with confidence in what promises to be one of the most important elections in a generation.

Roy Tanner



President Bush at the RNC

Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens: I am honored by your support, and I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning. We saw the bravery of rescuers grow with danger. We learned of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds, and charging through sandstorms and liberating millions, with acts of valor that would make the men of Normandy proud.

Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them. Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach, and greatness in our future. We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America and nothing will hold us back.

Two months from today, voters will make a choice based on the records we have built, the convictions we hold and the vision that guides us forward. A presidential election is a contest for the future. Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years.

I believe every child can learn and every school must teach — so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors — so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage and nothing will hold us back.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers — so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs and nothing will hold us back.

I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.

I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I believe this nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership — and that is why, with your help, we will win this election.

The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.

The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career — often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the home.

This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems — the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training — were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared — and thus truly free — to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.

My plan begins with providing the security and opportunity of a growing economy. We now compete in a global market that provides new buyers for our goods, but new competition for our workers. To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making tax relief permanent. To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess — filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve — and our economic future demands a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

Another priority in a new term will be to help workers take advantage of the expanding economy to find better, higher-paying jobs. In this time of change, many workers want to go back to school to learn different or higher-level skills. So we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges. I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. To stand with workers in poor communities — and those that have lost manufacturing, textile and other jobs — we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially ob-gyn , who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp time and flex time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family friendly workplace.

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity and independence.

Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say "Welcome to my home."

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account — a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.

In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path — a path to greater opportunity, more freedom and more control over your own life.

This path begins with our youngest Americans. To build a more hopeful America, we must help our children reach as far as their vision and character can take them. Tonight, I remind every parent and every teacher, I say to every child: No matter what your circumstance, no matter where you live — your school will be the path to the promise of America.

We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools. By testing every child, we are identifying those who need help — and we're providing a record level of funding to get them that help.

We are making progress — and there is more to do. In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma.

Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it's easy to remember: GeorgeWBush.com.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for — he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes — and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

His policies of tax and spend — of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity — are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future — and we are not turning back.

In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment.

Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of "conservative values," which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of "moral darkness," then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism — and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, "Whatever it takes." A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, "Do not let me down." Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America — whatever it takes.

So we have fought the terrorists across the earth — not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive — striking terrorists abroad — so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail.

Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fund-raising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.

This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that Sept. 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people — yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election — a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong prime minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January.

Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi — and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others — allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear — and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances — heart by heart, and nation by nation — America will be more secure and the world more peaceful.

The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. Yet Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of liberty to transform lives and nations. That power brought settlers on perilous journeys, inspired colonies to rebellion, ended the sin of slavery, and set our Nation against the tyrannies of the 20th century. We were honored to aid the rise of democracy in Germany and Japan and Nicaragua and Central Europe and the Baltics — and that noble story goes on. I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers — to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

We see America's character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again. We see that character in workers and entrepreneurs, who are renewing our economy with their effort and optimism. And all of this has confirmed one belief beyond doubt: Having come this far, our tested and confident Nation can achieve anything.

To everything we know there is a season — a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America.

Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America — and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward — grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.

God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.



Biographical Data on President George W. Bush

George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn into office January 20, 2001, after a campaign in which he outlined sweeping proposals to reform America's public schools, transform our national defense, provide tax relief, modernize Social Security and Medicare, and encourage faith-based and community organizations to work with government to help Americans in need. President Bush served for six years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, where he earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shaped public policy based on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.

Since taking office, President Bush has signed into law bold initiatives to improve public schools by raising standards, requiring accountability, and strengthening local control. He has signed tax relief that provided rebate checks and lower tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America. He has increased pay and benefits for America's military and is working to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. He is also committed to ushering in a responsibility era in America, and has called on all Americans to be "citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a Nation of character."

The attacks of September 11th changed America - and in President Bush's words, "in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment." President Bush declared war against terror and has made victory in the war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. Already, the United States military and a great coalition of nations have liberated the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and denied al Qaeda its safe haven of operations. Thousands of terrorists have been captured or killed and operations have been disrupted in many countries around the world. In the President's words, "our Nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also includes their two dogs, Spot and Barney, and a cat, India.



Can Kerry Execute?
Why governors make better presidents than senators do.

by Pete du Pont
Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

My senior senator, Joe Biden of Delaware, gave a hometown speech earlier this year about U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. It was a thoughtful presentation, but it included a criticism of the election of former governors to the presidency because they had no foreign-policy experience and thus were insensitive and less capable regarding foreign policy and international concerns. Senators who've served on the Foreign Relations Committee, he implied, would do much better.

But Mr. Biden has it backwards. Of the 17 presidents of the 20th century, from Teddy Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, eight had been executives before coming to the White House (seven governors and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower), and seven had served in Congress but lacked executive experience. (William Taft and Herbert Hoover held only appointive offices before becoming president.) The current book "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," compiled by The Wall Street Journal and the Federalist Society (and available from the OpinionJournal bookstore), asked 78 scholars to rate all our presidents. Among the 20th-century presidents, five of those with executive experience--Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ike, Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson--ranked as great or near great. Among the seven with legislative experience, only Harry S. Truman made the cut. On average, 20th-century presidents who had been governors (plus Eisenhower) scored 3.51 on a five-point scale; the others who had served in the House or Senate, 2.81.

Which leads to the conclusion that America is usually better off with a president who has had executive experience before reaching the White House. Presidents have to lead, set a course, and come to conclusions. Senators can, with furrowed brow, be very concerned, vote this way and that to show their concern, and hope to gain the votes of the citizens expressing the concerns. But once in the White House, men of concern, consensus and compromise are much less likely to provide the leadership the country needs than men of principle, resolve, and the executive experience to make decisions.

And that is the problem with Sen. John Kerry as a potential president. He looks concerned, no doubt is concerned, with everyone's point of view. As senator he votes one day for trade agreements like Nafta, and later on opposes them. He can vote for funding the war in Iraq before he votes against it. He can be worried about France and Germany, and base America's foreign policy upon their agreement so as not to raise their concerns.

There is no question that Mr. Kerry is a liberal's liberal. National Journal rated his 2003 Senate voting record as the most liberal of all 100 senators--more liberal than even Ted Kennedy. He is against the death penalty (except for terrorists), and he says he personally opposes abortion, as a political matter he supports it fully and opposes the confirmation of judicial nominees who are not pro-abortion. He says he opposes same-sex marriage, but voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. He is opposed to any form of school choice.

None of this should be a surprise; Democratic presidential nominees are always very liberal or they would not have won the liberal party's nomination.

But what is surprising is Mr. Kerry's regression to failed policies of the past. He strongly believes in the redistribution of income--higher income taxes, returning to the double taxation of dividends by raising the dividend tax from 15% back to 40%--and a broad and deep increase in the size and authority of the federal government. He has proposed a $653 billion federal health-care program and another trillion dollars in other new spending, which would about a 10% increase in federal spending in his first year in office. Like FDR in the 1930s, he wants to control business activity with heavy regulation; like Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, he wants to accelerate the growth of government substantially.

John Kerry has become a virulent protectionist, promising to eviscerate existing trade agreements--including Nafta, for which he voted in 1993--by adding environmental and other requirements that would reduce trade and limit the lower consumer prices and greater American job opportunities it creates. His running mate, John Edwards--another very liberal senator (fourth in the National Journal rating) without executive experience--more strongly states the Kerry-Edwards trade position: "I campaigned against Nafta. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, and against the Singapore trade agreement." Sounds as if they would have supported Herbert Hoover's Smoot-Hawley tariffs that devastated America's economy 70 years ago.

On the use of military force to protect America's interests, Mr. Kerry is a creature of the 1960s, an antiwar, minimal-defense believer. He worked in the Senate to reduce missile defense funding and cut funding for military aircraft and tanks. He opposed American actions to topple a communist dictatorship in Nicaragua, and he protested against the war in Vietnam (where he had honorably served), because "communism was not a threat to our country." He opposed liberation of Kuwait, believing that economic sanctions would have persuaded Saddam Hussein to go home. And Mr. Kerry's effort in the 1990s to cut $7 billion out of intelligence funding and thus limit the scope and ability of intelligence services to protect our nation is unnerving.

Mr. Kerry's vision becomes no clearer when he looks ahead to future challenges. In 2004, for the first time in recent history, the federal government will have to use general revenue--about $45 billion, or 3.6% of federal income tax revenues--to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. With the growing baby boomer retirement, Social Security's demand on outside tax revenues will quickly grow. Mr. Kerry is very concerned about Social Security, so what would he do to solve the problem? Reduce benefits? No. Raise the retirement age? No. Raise taxes? No. Impose means testing? No. Move the system to privately owned accounts so that retirement benefits can grow and federal revenue contributions are reduced? No again. On the most significant economic challenge of the coming decades, John Kerry has no vision, no goal, no response at all--not a good sign for a prospective leader of the United States.

His nomination speech in Boston restated his tax-increase proposal and his protectionism--and avoided almost everything he voted for as a senator. He stressed the need for "a strong military," even though his Senate voting record reflects the exact opposite. He would like us to think he is a new man with a different viewpoint, but people rarely abandon one long-held set of political viewpoints and adopt another. He is likely "reporting for duty"--a very good line--in the future with the same liberal beliefs and policy uncertainties he has expressed in the past.

John Kerry would certainly be a concerned president, but concern is not enough. A principled president with a clear vision and executive leadership experience is far more important for our nation.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.



Who Is John Kerry?

If we consider just his remarks during his acceptance speech at the DNC, Senator Kerry's biography seemed to end at 24. Surely America doesn't want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, to commend him to us.

What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate? What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in? What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What injustices did he correct?

Well, for the record, let's take a look...

THE FACTS ABOUT SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA)

National Journal Named Kerry “Most Liberal” Congressional Dem Running For President. “A compilation of the annual scores for the seven Democrats [running for President] over the past 20 years shows that Kerry was the most liberal throughout the period. … With limited exceptions, Kerry’s scores have consistently placed him toward the liberal end of the Senate.” (Richard E. Cohen, “Keeping Score,” National Journal, 1/31/03)


Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry’s Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003.
Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, “How They Measured Up,” http://nationaljournal.com, 2/27/04)

KERRY CLAIMS HE’S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES, AND AGAINST TAX CUTS

- Kerry Has Voted At Least 350 Times For Higher Taxes.
- Kerry Voted For Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.
- Kerry Voted Against President Bush’s Historic 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts.
- Kerry Has Voted Against Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times.
- Kerry Has Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 29 Times.

KERRY IS EXTREME ON ABORTION, SUPPORTING FEDERAL FUNDING AND IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICES

- Kerry Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortions.
- Kerry Voted Three Times Against Parental Consent/Notification For Minor’s Abortion.
- Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Funding Of Abortions And To Provide Abortion Counseling In Federally-Funded Clinics.


KERRY IN DEPTH

KERRY CLAIMS HE’S FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUTHAS A HISTORY OF VOTING FOR HIGHER TAXES

Kerry Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 29 Times, Including President Bush’s Historic 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 4/11/03, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, Roll Call Vote #165: Adopted 62-38: R 50-0; D 12-38, 5/23/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #98: Adopted 53-47: R 48-2; D 5-45, 5/10/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #86: Adopted 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, 4/6/01, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, Roll Call Vote #69: Adopted 53-47: R 4-46; D 49-1, 4/4/01, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2614, CQ Vote #286: Motion Agreed To 55-40: R 50-1; D 5-39, 10/26/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #79: Adopted 51-45: R 51-2; D 0-43, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/7/00, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1429, CQ Vote #230: Motion Rejected 46-54: R 45-9; D 0-45; I 1-0, 7/29/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 68, CQ Vote #81: Adopted 55-44: R 54-0; D 1-44, 3/25/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2488, CQ Vote #261: Adopted 50-49: R 49-4; D 0-45; I 1-0, 8/5/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1429, CQ Vote #247: Passed 57-43: R 52-2; D 4-41; I 1-0, 7/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2014, CQ Vote #160: Passed 80-18: R 51-4; D 29-14, 6/27/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 84, CQ Vote #92: Adopted 78-22: R 41-14; D 37-8, 5/23/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 27, CQ Vote #90: Motion Agreed To 73-27: R 28-27: D 45-0, 5/23/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 27, CQ Vote #77: Motion Agreed To 68-31: R 23-31; D 45-0, 5/21/97, Kerry Voted Yea; H. Con Res. 178, CQ Vote #159: Adopted 53-46: R 53-0; D 0-46, 6/13/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #151: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 50-3; D 7-40, 5/23/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #140: Rejected 43-57: R 40-13; D 3-44, 5/22/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #584: Motion Agreed To 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 11/18/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2491, CQ Vote #556: Passed 52-47: R 52-1; D 0-46, 10/28/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 67, CQ Vote #296: Adopted 54-46: R 54-0; D 0-46, 6/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #178: Rejected 31-69: R 31-23; D 0-46, 5/23/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 39-59: R 35-8; D 4-51, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3628, CQ Vote #298: Rejected 51-47 (needed 3/5 majority): R 45-0; D 6-47, 11/15/89, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice For Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History.
(H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

In His Senate Career, Kerry Has Voted Against Balanced Budget Amendment At Least Five Times. Other fiscally irresponsible votes include at least three key votes against lowering overall spending.
(S.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #24: Rejected 66-34: R 55-0; D 11-34, 3/4/97; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #158: Rejected 64-35: R 52-1; D 12-34, 6/6/96; H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #98: Rejected 65-35: R 51-2; D 14-33, 3/2/95; S.J. Res. 41, CQ Vote #48: Rejected 63-37: R 41-3; D 22-34, 3/1/94; S.J. Res. 225, CQ Vote #45: Rejected 66-34: R 43-10; D 23-24, 3/25/86)

Kerry Named Most Liberal Senator On Economic Issues. National Journal’s most recent scores gave Kerry a 95/100 liberal score on economic issues – the highest in the Senate. In fact, Kerry’s score tied with only 4 other Senators: Boxer (D-CA), Clinton (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

Received A 35 Percent Lifetime Rating From U.S. Chamber Of Commerce. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, “How They Voted Scorecards,” http://www.uschamber.com/, Accessed 3/8/04)

National Taxpayers Union Foundation Ranked Kerry Below Congress’ Only Self-Proclaimed Socialist. Between 1992 and 2003, Sen. John Kerry racked up an 18.75 percent average rating from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had an average rating of 25.4 during the same time period. (National Taxpayers Union Foundation Website, “Rates Congress Database,” http://www.ntu.org/, Accessed 4/8/04)

Kerry Called For “Fiscal Responsibility,” Just Like When He Voted For The 1993 Tax Hike, The Largest In History. “All the Democrats have generally resisted the GOP proposal to make the tax cuts permanent. . . . Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry called for ‘a return to the fiscal responsibility we gave this country in 1993 when we passed the Deficit Reduction Act.’” (Will Lester, “Top Democrats Complain About Bush Economic Plans, But Some Steer Away From Tax Debate,” The Associated Press, 10/15/02)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes In Economic Downturn:
In September 2001, Kerry Said We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . . you don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

In April 2002, Kerry Said He Wanted A Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” A Repeal. CNN’S TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry, . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year . . . . [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

In December 2002, Kerry Flip-Flopped. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut . . . . What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. . . .” RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years . . . .” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

KERRY IS EXTREME ON ABORTION, SUPPORTING FEDERALFUNDING OF ABORTIONS AND PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.
(H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #596: Passed 54-44: R 45-8; D 9-36; I 0-0, 12/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #301: Motion Rejected 57-41: R 45-6; D 12-35; I 0-0, 9/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #71: Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #277: Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1692, CQ Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31, I 1-0, 10/21/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Agreed To 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Says, “There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth.” “Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call ‘partial-birth abortion,’ Senator John F. Kerry declared last night ‘there is no such thing as a partial birth,’ as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters. … ‘It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It’s part of their assault on the rights of women in America. … There’s nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure,” The Boston Globe, 11/6/03)

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In The United States.
(H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 46-46: R 17-31; D 29-15, 10/24/85, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2965, CQ Vote #274: Motion Rejected 47-48: R 35-17; D 12-31, 11/1/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5175, CQ Vote #263: Adopted 48-42: R 16-33; D 32-9, 9/16/86, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2713, CQ Vote #289: Motion Agreed To 60-39: R 16-30; D 44-9, 9/30/87, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #232: Motion Agreed To 49-37: R 16-25; D 33-12, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #233: Motion Agreed To 51-34: R 16-24; D 35-10, 7/7/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4783, CQ Vote #268: Adopted 73-19: R 39-5; D 34-14, 7/27/88, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4776, CQ Vote #348: Motion Agreed To 45-44: R 31-10; D 14-34, 9/30/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #68: Ruling Of The Chair Rejected 45-51: R 34-10; D 11-41, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4404, CQ Vote #69: Ruled Germane 54-42: R 12-32; D 42-10, 4/27/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 110, CQ Vote #252: Adopted 62-36: R 16-27; D 46-9, 9/25/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 322, CQ Vote #254: Passed 73-26: R 20-23; D 53-3, 10/1/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2403, CQ #235: Ruled Not Germane 48-51: R 36-7; D 12-44, 8/3/93, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2518, CQ Vote #290: Rejected 40-59: R 6-38; D 34-21, 9/28/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #369: Adopted 52-41: R 15-35; D 37-6, 8/5/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #370: Adopted 50-44: R 40-10; D 10-34, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2020, CQ Vote #371: Rejected 45-49: R 9-41; D 36-8, 8/7/95, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #478: Motion Agreed To 52-44: R 43-9; D 9-35, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #539: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 46-7; D 9-37, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1357, CQ Vote #542: Motion Agreed To 56-43: R 46-7; D 10-36, 10/27/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3019, CQ Vote #38: Rejected 45-55: R 6-47; D 39-8, 3/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3756, CQ Vote #284: Motion Agreed To 53-45: R 43-9; D 10-36, 9/11/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 947, CQ Vote #129: Rejected 39-61: R 5-50; D 34-11, 6/25/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1023, CQ Vote #190: Adopted 54-45: R 48-7; D 6-38, 7/22/97, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1282, CQ Vote #197: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 7-46; D 40-5, 7/1/99, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1984, Kerry Said He Would Vote Against “Any Restrictions” On Age Or Consent For Abortion. Kerry: “Throughout my political career, I have opposed any attempt to infringe on women’s reproductive freedom. I shall continue to oppose any such attempts however they are guised. I believe this decision is outside the province of government entirely, and would vote against any restrictions on age, consent, funding restrictions, or any law to limit access to abortion.” (“Mass. Senate Candidates Quizzed on Women’s Issues,” Sojourner: The Women’s Forum, 6/30/84)

Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent Or Notification For A Minor’s Abortion. (H.R. 5257, CQ Vote #266: Motion Rejected 48-48: R 8-34; D 40-14, 10/12/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 323, CQ Vote #131, Adopted 52-47: R 38-5; D 14-42, 7/16/91, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #185: Rejected 45-55: R 31-12; D 14-43, 9/11/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

While Kerry Earns A 0% Rating From The National Right To Life Committee, His NARAL Rating Is Consistently 100%. (Vote Smart Interest Group Ratings, www.vote-smart.org, Accessed 12/6/02)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 2003 Votes From Planned Parenthood. (Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. Website, http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/person-vote.html?person_id=2040, Accessed 1/24/04)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 1999 Votes From Planned Parenthood. (“Performance Evaluations Data For Senator John Forbes Kerry Of Massachusetts,” http://www.votesmart.org/, Accessed 7/19/00)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 Votes From NARAL. (NARAL, Congressional Votes On Abortion, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993)

Kerry Received 100% Ranking For 2002 Votes From NARAL Pro-Choice America. (NARAL Pro-Choice America Website, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/publications/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=2079, Accessed 1/24/04)

Kerry Received 0% Ranking From National Right To Life Committee For 108th, 107th And 106th Congresses, And 7% Ranking For 105th Congress. (National Right To Life Committee Website, http://www.nrlc.org/, Accessed 1/22/04)

KERRY HAS A HISTORY OF CONTRADICTING HIMSELF AND TAKING BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE

The Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

The Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

The First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’:

‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]

‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Death Penalty For Terrorists

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”’” (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Double Taxation Of Dividends

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)
May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)

We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)

April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)

50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

The Israel Security Fence

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

Ballistic Missile Defense

Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000.
(“John Kerry On The Defense Budget,” Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An “ Yea “ Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.” (Peace Action Website, “Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?” http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)
Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS’ MAJOR GARRETT: “Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn’t believe will work.” KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: “He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/17/03)

View Of War On Terror

Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)

Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.”
(S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)