WILL THE REAL JOHN KERRY PLEASE STAND UP?

NY POST ^ | Feb 8, 2004 | lettres to the editor

[MurryMom]

Are you seriously claiming that "22 million jobs over 8 years and the greatest prosperity the world has ever known" resulted from John Kerry's Senate years? Exactly how did Senator Kerry achieve this? And all by himself, too. Impressive.

Yes, Sen. Kerry's Senate record is even more impressive than his heroic military record. You must have forgot that Sen. Kerry voted for President Clinton's economic program in 1993, passed without a single Republican vote. If Kerry had not supported the President, we would not have enjoyed 8 straight years of peace and prosperity ending in the year 2001.

BTW, do you support the following statement by Bush on Sunday's MTP interview: "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined."

Even by Bush's standards the quoted statement is a new low, combining 2 gross lies in a single sentence!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Yes, Sen. Kerry's Senate record is even more impressive than his heroic military record.

If you're a leftist freak, anyway...

[GraceCoolidge]

It never ceases to amaze me how people conclude that the economy is immediately responsive the instant a (Democratic) President takes office. And of course, it follows that all of this ended in 2001, the instant President Bush came into the White House. So the "8 straight years of peace and prosperity" sprang to life the moment President Clinton lifted his hand from the Bible? The effects of President Clinton's economic program (or any program) are not felt the moment it is enacted.... we pay for it later. The economy doesn't react instantaneously to any program, not even your beloved President Clinton's. He didn't walk into the office and flip the "activate economy" switch. The peace and prosperity enjoyed by President Clinton is more attributable to Reagan/Bush policies (and, of course, to the Republican initiatives that President Clinton embraced) than to President Clinton.

By the way, thanks for the humor in your comment that Sen. Kerry's Senate record "is even more impressive than his heroic military record"! You might want to pass that information on to him... he seems a lot more interested in talking about his heroic actions in Vietnam than his activities as a Senator. By the way, did a "heroic military record" make any difference to your opinion of candidates in 1992? 1996? Or are you another late bloomer in military appreciation? Seems to be a lot of that going around these days....

[MurryMom]

BTW, do you support the following statement by Bush on Sunday's MTP interview: "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined."

[Petronski]

If Kerry had not supported the President, we would not have enjoyed 8 straight years of peace and prosperity ending in the year 2001.

I'd ask you to explain that, but I won't bother because you're such a dumbass. You think you understand economics because back in high school you took "home economics."

[GraceCoolidge]

Oooh, so clever... you must read Slate. I bet you were going to post their "analysis" as your own. Nice try, but I can read it on that website. Frankly, I think government spending is out of contol, period. The federal budget needs to be cut way back, no matter who is in the White House. But I sure wouldn't present President Clinton as any paragon of financial responsibility. And you did hear that it is Congress that passes spending bills, didn't you?