Posted on 04/29/2004 6:07:39 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
COMPARISON OF VOTING RECORDS IN REGARD TO NATIONAL DEFENSE -- (House of Representatives - April 28, 2004)
[Page: H2465] GPO's PDF
--- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been watching the national debate and, of course, all of the talk shows and all of the discussion about Senator Kerry's service to the country, the President's service to the country, who is patriotic, who is not patriotic. I think that it is important to lay out in lines of demarcation across what is fair political comment and what is not. I think that, first, service to our country gives any Member who has served, especially in a war like Vietnam, the platform, the right, to certainly have a position, a credible position on what we should do with respect to national defense. On the other hand, service in the military does not by and of itself mean that you are not accountable for, if you are elected to Congress, your voting record.
What I would like to do is to simply say that I have no quarrel with Senator Kerry's having served in Vietnam. I think that is a good thing and I think that being a veteran is something people should be commended for. On the other hand, I think it is very important to say that that is not a substitute for a strong defense voting record. I heard several people attacking the President the other day and Vice President Cheney in particular, saying that Vice President Cheney had a poor voting record on defense and that Senator Kerry had a good voting record on defense. So what I did was go to the Almanac of American Politics, which puts together a series of ratings on Congressmen and Senators. It is done by the National Journal. It is considered to be nonpartisan. It is considered to have a great deal of credibility. They give people ratings by groups that they think are good, honest brokers of where you stand in particular areas.
For example, I have, I think, a fairly low AFL-CIO rating. Other Members of Congress have a high rating. That rating is in the National Journal, where people can open it up and see my rating. Senator Kerry also has a rating from the American Security Council. He has a rating that was given at the same time that he was in the Senate that the Vice President, RICHARD CHENEY, was in the House of Representatives, and in which a real barometer for being a good, strong defense Democrat, Sam Nunn of Georgia, was in the Senate. I looked at this rating. The rating at the time when they were all three in Congress, Vice President Cheney, at that time Congressman CHENEY, had a 100 percent American Security Council rating for being strong on national defense as reported by the Almanac of American Politics. Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia, had a 100 percent rating for being strong on national defense under the American Security Council rating system as reported in the Almanac of American Politics put out by National Journal. Senator Kerry had a zero for a national defense voting record as rated by the American Security Council, as reported by the National Journal's Almanac of American Politics. Once again Vice President Cheney, 100 percent in votes in support of a strong national defense. Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia, 100 percent for a strong national defense. Senator JOHN KERRY, zero.
I do not think we should continue to debate ad nauseam Senator Kerry's record with respect to Vietnam. I think his words when he testified to the Senate and said that American servicemen had murdered 200,000 people, I think he should be accountable for that. I think he should be accountable for the statement when he said that 80 percent of them were stoned on pot 24 hours a day and that they ravaged the country like Genghis Khan. But I do not think that we should ad nauseam debate his service. We should, though, debate his voting record and whether that voting record portends well for the United States of America in terms of a strong national security should he become President of the United States. I think that we ought to go to the record, we ought to get off this who shot JOHN and who is bad and who is good and who served and who did not, but go to the voting record and analyze who would be best in terms of making a strong national security apparatus for our country. In my estimation, that is not Senator Kerry.
I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is also a GREAT read and has alot of info.
Vice President Cheney, 100 percent in votes in support of a strong national defense. Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia, 100 percent for a strong national defense. Senator JOHN KERRY, zero.
As reported by the Almanac of American Politics, Congressman Cheney, had a 100 percent American Security Council rating for being strong on national defense . Senator Kerry had a zero rating for his national defense voting record.
Great stuff. Bump.
You like the smell of burning Bull Manure?
Man! You have wierd taste, but it takes all sorts, I guess.
100 versus zero. Merely a difference of degree, IOW. </Kerry_mode>
Lando 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.