[Overpaid Slacker]

Cool_chick If you want to believe that you're smarter than 52% of the country, I'll give you that. Intellectually, you're just about the 50th percentile of people I've experienced. Be proud of that if you must. I imagine third party kudos involving your mental prowess are scant.

You want distortion? You're trying to pull a colossal one.

This is what I said:

If you call "fear" putting forward Kerry's record of complacency on defense, so be it. The silence on his Senate record re: defense was deafening in the mainstream media.

However, your snide reply did not respond to what I said, it responded to other things said by other people about Kerry's record. I'm assuming, given your incalculable self-esteem, that you intentionally changed what I had written in to what you wanted to respond to -- which itself is a distortion.

You start with "The Bush campaign bases..." Hmm... did I mention the Bush campaign? Did I mention Zell Miller's litany of weapons systems, or any of that? No. Did I bring up S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990) or H.R. 2126 (1995)? No. Nor did I implicate them.

Nor was any one weapons system or litany therof what I was referring to, but that was what you felt you could respond to -- by distorting what I'd said into a snippy tirade having nothing to do with what I'd written. One that winds up not disproving what I'd said, incidentally, but by using an instance involving Cheney, essentially concluding, "Well Cheney's a pansy too." Brilliant is exactly not the word for that "tactic."

Nor did you touch, for an instant, on the media's cavernous silence about Kerry's voting record on matters defense. Hmmm... so you had one non-responsive comment on one-half of what I'd typed, ignoring not only 1/2 of what I'd typed but 90% of the actual issue at hand to parrot back some vapid Kerry defense ("well he didn't just vote against those weapons systems, he voted against everything!!!!) and anti-Cheney tripe. Yeeeaahh ... not impressed.

I mean, you couldn't be so imperceptive, uninformed and doltish to have focused on only one weapons system issue subset in the whole spectrum of Kerry's Senate defense record and media silence thereon, could you? No, methinks you had no response, in toto, to what I wrote, so you distorted it to fit one micro-issue.

I have to assume that this witless strategem has worked for you in the past... so who is it that you really smart people hang around with that's fooled by such puerile tactics? Me and Halliburton have some land to sell them.

But, as my adversaries here will attest, I have no lasting grudge against even the 52%ers of the intellectual spectrum, so herewith, a primer. Let's begin. Welcome to Pelican.

The Center for Security Policy ("promoting international peace through American strength"), covering more than 75 votes over the past decade gave JK one of the lowest ratings of any Senator. In 1995, he got a 5 out of 100. In 1997, het got a zero out of 100. Yes, CSP is conservative, but so what? They're still ranking based on commitment to American strength, left or right of the aisle. Not a ringing endorsement for defense, whatever side JK's on.

Oh, yeah, and the liberal advocacy group Americans for Democratic Action ranked JK as one of the five most dovish or liberal members on foreign policy. That would no doubt be a badge of honor, whereas essentially the same conclusion from the VRWC CSP is a dismissable partisan hack job, I know.

A few other JK Congressional career highlights:

When first running in 1984, he explained he was firmly against the B-1, B-2, AH-64, Patriot, F-15, F-14A/D, AV-8B, Aegis cruisers and Trident. This is not a single system buried in a trillion dollar budget -- this was him, avowing he was against these specific things. You do see the difference here, yes? He did it to secure the endorsement of a peacenik (likely Soviet-funded) group, but he did it nonetheless. Actually, he initially held out and said he liked Trident, but they told him if he didn't act to cancel Trident, they'd support another candidate. He caved. Caved is too small a word, actually.

JK derided Reagan's build-ups as "bloated" and "without any relevancy to the threat". This was at a time when Sam Nunn, Al Gore, Norman Dicks, Sonny Montgomery and Les Aspin agreed with Reagan. JK was out-there way back then; rabidly anti-defense when contemporary and future luminaries of his own party were pro-D.

JK opposed NATO-approved build-up of missiles in Europe, instead preferring a one-sided "nuclear freeze."

Just go back and read that one again. Let that show of fortitude and commitment to parity, security and defense sink in................................................ ........... OK, move on.

He opposed invasion of Grenada, calling it a "bully's show of force."

He opposed support for guerillas in Nicaragua, traveling to Managua to cut a deal with "bully" Daniel Ortega to thwart Reagan.

He opposed Desert Storm and use of force to liberate Kuwait.

He called National Missile Defense "fantasy". THE program , credited by former Soviet ministers as having crippled their economy and ended the USSR. "Fantasy." Yeah, there's a visionary. Oh, and the fifth successful test (and third in a row?) of missile defense ("hitting a bullet with a bullet") happened a coupla' months ago.

1991 - voted to cut defense spending by 2%. Only 21 other senators voted with him and the cut was defeated.

1991 -- voted to cut over $3bn from defense, shifting the funds to social programs; only 27 senators joined him.

1992 -- voted to cut $6bn from defense; R's and D's together blocked this attempt.

1993 -- voted against increased defense spending for military pay raise.

1993 -- JK introduced a plan to cut the number of submarines, reduce tactical fighter wings, terminate coastal mine-hunting ship program, force retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year AND reduce the number of light infantry units to one. He could find no co-sponsors for this bill -- it was HIS, all HIS, and it was DOA.

1995 -- JK voted to freeze defense spending for 7 (!) years, cutting over $34bn from defense; only 27 senators joined him.

1996 -- JK introduced a bill to cut defense spending by $6.5bn. Again, no co-sponsors to be found for this brave expression of defense of America -- it was HIS, all HIS and it too was DOA.

1996 -- JK voted again to freeze defense spending for 7 years, at a cost of $34.8bn; the resolution was rejected 28-71.

And yet, given ALL of the foregoing, he wanted to be seen as a tough, pro-defense Senator. Why, then, in his 55 minute acceptance speech ("reporting for duty!!") did he barely mention his 20 years in the Senate, let alone any of his pro-defense positions?

Why, which was more the thrust of my earlier quote -- it was obtuse, I know, which explains how it completely evaded your ... um ... "response" did the media give him a free pass on the foregoing? Why was he not questioned, interrogated, grilled on it? I mean, hey if you want that kind of a record in your President, OK. I disagree, but that's what you want. What is important to me is, after having accumulated such a record, he wanted nothing to do with it -- he didn't mention it, and he was conveniently let off the hook about it my our media.

When asked about his record, rather than pointing to accomplishments on defense, he replied with misdirection, accusing his critics of attacking his patriotism, claiming "No one is going to question my commitment to the defense of our nation." and "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam [waitaminute you mean he served in Vietnam? For Four months, Thirty Years Ago? Why didn't he mention this?!?] have against those of us who did." Way to give us the specifics, JK; good response, full of valid information and detailed rebuttal to the critique of your record of defense weakness.

Then again, c_c, you probably think those are smashing good answers, being a fan yourself of misdirection and obfuscation -- and an obvious practictioner of the dem tactic to so act while shrieking that the other side is the one doing it.

Read some Techweenie or Lynn for a few weeks. Study. Practice. Your posts indicate you're not even close to ready for these leagues yet.

I don't expect you to read this -- not for the same deigning to my humble intellect and ego reasons you implied earlier, but b/c it's too long.

JP