[Shortwave]

Kerry underestimated the backlash of his posturing post-Vietnam. If you have followed his career, and I have, he's done very little in the Senate and has not sponsored one bill in his twelve year tenure. He brought nothing to the table in terms of legislation that he can point to as actually helping the country on one side or the other.

What you have is a guy who literally got men tortured in Vietnam and yet has used his four months of questionable service there as his framework for proving to the country that he's going to be strong on terror.

You know the Bush campaign is going well when seminar callers to the national and local conservative talk shows are more vile than ever. It's so obvious because they usually start and end with an insult about the opponent's level of intellect. Old lib ploy; "We are smart and you are a hick."

[Graybeard58]

Old lib ploy; "We are smart and you are a hick."

I first heard it in the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaign. They have probably been saying it before then.

Another of their ploys is to scream shrilly that the Republicans want to take away their social security checks.

[FateAmenableToChange]

he's done very little in the Senate and has not sponsored one bill in his twelve year tenure.

Unfortunately, not true. He's sponsored approximately 320 pieces of legislation in his time in the senate. 9 of his sponsored bills were successful, 5 of which were only resolutions like "POW's That I Stepped on To Get To the Senate Remembrance Day". Kerry has sponsored only 4 pieces of successful substantive legislation in his entire term in the senate, none of it significant.

[varon]

If you have followed his career, and I have, he's done very little in the Senate and has not sponsored one bill in his twelve year tenure.

I don't care for Kerry either but at least if I was going to bring up his deficiencies, I would try to be factual as to maintain my credibility.

If you had followed his career as yo claim, then you would know he was elected in 1984 and started serving in 2005. That means it's been 20 years since he was elected and 19 years since he started serving. As you can see, the 12 year tenure you attribute to him is incorrect.

However, there is a silver lining of sorts in that his lack of 'productivity' now spans a longer period of time.