Center scores national security votes in 108th Congress
John Kerry Rates A "Zero," John Edwards A "23"
The Center for Security Policy
10.9.04

The Center for Security Policy released today its instructive sixth edition of the National Security Scorecard - covering the 108th Congress (assessing votes conducted up to September 15, 2004) - that is designed to illuminate the voting records of members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives on important defense and foreign policy issues. The Scorecard considers 12 House and 18 Senate votes.

In producing the National Security Scorecard, the Center hopes to assist the American people in understanding the commitment of their elected officials to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength, and to encourage greater accountability on the part of Senators and Members of Congress for their adherence to this principle.

Confronted by enemies bent on nothing short of Western civilization's destruction, the Free World turns to America for leadership in developing the policies that will ultimately defeat these menaces. The Scorecard could not be of greater importance in judging the performance of those in Congress charged with this responsibility.

High scorers (over 90%) on the Senate side included: George Allen (R-VA), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sue Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Ensign (R-NV), William Frist (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Craig Thomas (R-WY).

LINKS (short summary): http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=04-P_09  and

FULL REPORT (Acrobat required)http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/CSPnationalsecurityscorecard20032004.pdf  (Acrobat)


-Tough talk does not a strong candidate make.

Oh, what a crock!

The Center of Security Policy is located in Washington DC, but it is not part of the U.S. government.  It was founded by neo-con Frank Gaffney, formerly an underling to Richard Perle.
Below is info on the center.  Take a gander at who funds the joint!  There's also a link to info about Gaffney himself.
I wouldn't pay that CSP rating no mind.  They're part of the Republican neo-conservative apparatus.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/csp.php
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/gaffney/gaffney.php

Extremists. Bah. ::)

Extremists. Bah. ::)



My thoughts exactly.

More neocon BS.  What a crock.

High scorers (over 90%) on the Senate side included: George Allen (R-VA), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sue Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John Ensign (R-NV), William Frist (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Craig Thomas (R-WY).



Funny how all these people just happened to be Republicans.

Funny how all these people just happened to be Republicans.


Do you think?

It's not about "national security" in any real sense.  It's about the GOP, it's about the military-industrial complex, it's about subsidizing Israel as a front for the military-industrial complex.
"Peace through Strenth," the CNS declares.  Strenght=big subsidies for defense contractors and petroleum industries.  Strength=corporate fascism.  That's about it.

It's not about "national security" in any real sense. It's about the GOP, it's about the military-industrial complex, it's about subsidizing Israel as a front for the military-industrial complex.
"Peace through Strenth," the CNS declares. Strenght=big subsidies for defense contractors and petroleum industries. Strength=corporate fascism. That's about it.


Bullseye! I think you hit the nail on the head.

Funny how all these people just happened to be Republicans.


Think about which party supports the military more.  I'm sure if this was something on the environment all those R's (republicans) would be D's.

Can someone please find me a vote that Kerry did in the U.S. Senate that makes him look strong in any way on defense?

Out of 21 congressmen who got 100 perfect scores, 5 are from Georgia.  I love that, and that includes my congressman: Johnny Isakson.

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mac Collins (R-GA)
Nathan Deal (R-GA)
John P. Gingrey (R-GA)
Charlie Norwood (R-GA)

Georgia...ensuring America's security.

Think about which party supports the military more.  I'm sure if this was something on the environment all those R's (republicans) would be D's.

Can someone please find me a vote that Kerry did in the U.S. Senate that makes him look strong in any way on defense?

Only they don't support the military, they support the military defense contractors.  They bloated Pentagon budgets for cockamamie doomsday weapons systems and lap up the dripping of pork grease that trickle down their way.  They support NOT joining the armed forces in their youths, and going to grad school to become lawyers and businessmen and instead.  They support sending other people's kids to go die in unnecessary imperialist wars for the benefit of the military-industrial complex while their own kids do NOT join the armed forces and got to grad school to become the lawyers and businessmen who will become the NEXT Republican politicians to send other people's kids to go die in unnecessary imperialst wars...

Soldiers? Veterans?  Those ingrates can buzz off!

That's Republicans supporting the military for ya!
:D

It's not about "national security" in any real sense.  It's about the GOP, it's about the military-industrial complex, it's about subsidizing Israel as a front for the military-industrial complex.
"Peace through Strenth," the CNS declares.  Strenght=big subsidies for defense contractors and petroleum industries.  Strength=corporate fascism.  That's about it.
Bullseye! I think you hit the nail on the head.Ditto.......Bingo! Cmon GWB, admit it......you blew it by posting this obvious ultra right wing, hawkish BS and using it as some kind of legitimate "jab" at JFK's national defense qualifications. Or are you like your namesake?.......That is, even when the rest of the world, even those in his own party and a few defectors from his own administration, see that he's made a MAJOR gaffe, admitting so and learning from and trying to correct his mistake is somehow "beneath him".

Out of 21 congressmen who got 100 perfect scores, 5 are from Georgia.  I love that, and that includes my congressman: Johnny Isakson.

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mac Collins (R-GA)
Nathan Deal (R-GA)
John P. Gingrey (R-GA)
Charlie Norwood (R-GA)

Georgia...ensuring America's security.


no surprise here.  Georgia is home to more military contractors than anywhere else in the country.

Only they don't support the military, they support the military defense contractors.  They bloated Pentagon budgets for cockamamie doomsday weapons systems and lap up the dripping of pork grease that trickle down their way.  They support NOT joining the armed forces in their youths, and going to grad school to become lawyers and businessmen and instead.  They support sending other people's kids to go die in unnecessary imperialist wars for the benefit of the military-industrial complex while their own kids do NOT join the armed forces and got to grad school to become the lawyers and businessmen who will become the NEXT Republican politicians to send other people's kids to go die in unnecessary imperialst wars...

Soldiers? Veterans?  Those ingrates can buzz off!

That's Republicans supporting the military for ya!
:D



It's good for a change to read posts like this from someone who sees things like this as they truly are.

You know, I'm begining to feel like Mushroom.  GWB posts a bunch of crap, we lliberals and leftists respond, and it goes round and round.  I got censured (and rightly) for suggesting that GWB was playing with less than a full deck, but what does that say about the rest of us who taks so much time to respond to him?  Yes, in some ways its fun to show him up for...(don't want to be censured again).  But is it really worth the effort?  On the other hand, there are conservatives on the board ho deserve our respect even if we disagree with them because they demonstrate some intelligence and independent thinking.  I have disagreed with them, and carried out what I think were respectful debates, and have praised them for their civility.  So let us encourage them to continue and igonre this "agent provacature" who is hardly worth our time and effort.

It's good for a change to read posts like this from someone who sees things like this as they truly are.

Why, thank you, Hairspray, I appreciate that!
:)

You know, I'm begining to feel like Mushroom.  GWB posts a bunch of crap, we lliberals and leftists respond, and it goes round and round.  I got censured (and rightly) for suggesting that GWB was playing with less than a full deck, but what does that say about the rest of us who taks so much time to respond to him?  Yes, in some ways its fun to show him up for...(don't want to be censured again).  But is it really worth the effort? 
I've been asking myself the same question.  On the one hand, it's not worth it because most of their arguments are flapdoodle recycled from the right-wing propaganda machine.  I think I'm compelled to respond because I can't get on the air and respond to BIG LIARS like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.  I can refute their arguments on this board, though.

I'm thinking a line from Duckman:
Duckman: For crying out loud, why won't anybody listen to me?
Cornfed: Maybe it's because everything that comes out of your mouth is either misinformed, insulting, or nonsensical.
And that's how I feel about George W. Bush, and certain other conservatives who will go unnamed!

You know, I'm begining to feel like Mushroom.  GWB posts a bunch of crap, we lliberals and leftists respond, and it goes round and round.  I got censured (and rightly) for suggesting that GWB was playing with less than a full deck, but what does that say about the rest of us who taks so much time to respond to him?  Yes, in some ways its fun to show him up for...(don't want to be censured again).  But is it really worth the effort?  On the other hand, there are conservatives on the board ho deserve our respect even if we disagree with them because they demonstrate some intelligence and independent thinking.  I have disagreed with them, and carried out what I think were respectful debates, and have praised them for their civility.  So let us encourage them to continue and igonre this "agent provacature" who is hardly worth our time and effort.


You got to be be kidding me?  After all the pure crap you have been posting and passing off as intelligent, you have the nerve to accuse me of being below a full deck!?  Unreal.  I know exactly what you're trying to do, and its run every conservative out of here and pretend like you ''respect'' the ones that you do.  80's Rocked, Lyric Boy, and now Mushroom have all left I assume.  Mushroom I know of because of the goodbye PM he sent me.  So now you try to knock me off, being the last conservative target in here who posts often in the politics section.  You want to debate, you debate me on ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT, start a topic and lets go.  But I seriously doubt their are any ba**s to back stuff like that up.  Same with democrats who run around pretending to like John McCain, but I know if he won the primary instead of Bush back in 2000 he would be the target and we would be hearing ABM. 

DC, you can talk all the sh** you want, especially since all the liberals here will back you up without even thinking about what the heck you said, but with all the posts and pure BS that comes out of most of it, you have never been the highest liberal of respect here neither.  Again, I highly doubt you'll start a topic to debate me on, you'll probably just post a follow-up attack post, and I don't blame you....it is all cowards can do.

Sheesh, its like debating at the DU all over again.

And why not check your spelling before attacking my intelligence?

You got to be be kidding me?  After all the pure crap you have been posting and passing off as intelligent, you have the nerve to accuse me of being below a full deck!?  Unreal.  I know exactly what you're trying to do, and its run every conservative out of here and pretend like you ''respect'' the ones that you do.  80's Rocked, Lyric Boy, and now Mushroom have all left I assume.  Mushroom I know of because of the goodbye PM he sent me.  So now you try to knock me off, being the last conservative target in here who posts often in the politics section.  You want to debate, you debate me on ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT, start a topic and lets go.  But I seriously doubt their are any ba**s to back stuff like that up.  Same with democrats who run around pretending to like John McCain, but I know if he won the primary instead of Bush back in 2000 he would be the target and we would be hearing ABM. 
TAKE A CHILL PILL
This is all news to me, I thought you guys liked vigorous debate.  Why, I remember when Rush Limbaugh was hawking pamplets on how to defeat a liberal in any argument.  Just now Ann Coulter's published a book called How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must).  It has been the conservative mission to crush liberal positions with facts and logic, and take no prisoners.  I thought that's what you were up to.  You conservative gentlemen originated most of the controversial threads on this board.  You were always sure to post liberal-baiting topics and rip into liberal politics in the most gloating and gleeful manner possible. 
I recently commented regarding the national discourse, "What goes around comes around."  The right-wing pundits have been indignant over the past four years about the hate and vitriol liberals have for George W. Bush.  A sensible person can only throw up his hands and say, "Well, what on Earth did you expect after eight years of trying to destroy Bill Clinton?"
Same here on this board.  As Harry Truman used to say, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
It seems to me the outspoken conservatives on the board can't stand being in the minority of opinion.  Well, now you have a taste of what it's been like as a liberal to listen to talk radio and Fox News.  If the conservatives are quitting the board, that's their decision.  You can't fairly blame it on me, DC, McDonald, Dude, or anyone else.  We're just playing the same game you are.

DC, you can talk all the sh** you want, especially since all the liberals here will back you up without even thinking about what the heck you said, but with all the posts and pure BS that comes out of most of it, you have never been the highest liberal of respect here neither.  Again, I highly doubt you'll start a topic to debate me on, you'll probably just post a follow-up attack post, and I don't blame you....it is all cowards can do.

Sheesh, its like debating at the DU all over again.

I have some guesses at what DU stands for, but I'll refrain.
  ;D
And, please, don't act like DC has been the aggressor.  You have posted some pretty fallacious and mean assertions.  He has taken you to task on them.  True, DC said some unkind things to you, and Chucky called him on it.  However, I don't think you can call it unexpected.
And why not check your spelling before attacking my intelligence?
[Aye, DC's spelling is sometimes atrocious.  I see a lot of bad spelling on this board, but I don't correct people because I don't want to become my grandmother.  So, DC is a poor speller, but I agree with his points of view and find him a keenly intelligent and well-informed fellow.

TAKE A CHILL PILL
This is all news to me, I thought you guys liked vigorous debate.  Why, I remember when Rush Limbaugh was hawking pamplets on how to defeat a liberal in any argument.  Just now Ann Coulter's published a book called How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must).  It has been the conservative mission to crush liberal positions with facts and logic, and take no prisoners.  I thought that's what you were up to.  You conservative gentlemen originated most of the controversial threads on this board.  You were always sure to post liberal-baiting topics and rip into liberal politics in the most gloating and gleeful manner possible. 
I recently commented regarding the national discourse, "What goes around comes around."  The right-wing pundits have been indignant over the past four years about the hate and vitriol liberals have for George W. Bush.  A sensible person can only throw up his hands and say, "Well, what on Earth did you expect after eight years of trying to destroy Bill Clinton?"
Same here on this board.  As Harry Truman used to say, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
It seems to me the outspoken conservatives on the board can't stand being in the minority of opinion.  Well, now you have a taste of what it's been like as a liberal to listen to talk radio and Fox News.  If the conservatives are quitting the board, that's their decision.  You can't fairly blame it on me, DC, McDonald, Dude, or anyone else.  We're just playing the same game you are.





I will, I just had to vent that, DC struck a nerve.

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh's pamplet was famous.  I have it, it is called ''How to Defeat A Liberal.''  It can be effective.  Ann Coulter said on Hannity's show: ''If you can't turn the liberal into a screaming mess, you're not doing it right.''  I guess I did it right.  Good points, Maxwell, I blew up.

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh's pamplet was famous. I have it, it is called ''How to Defeat A Liberal.''

Let me guess... does it suggest making arguments you can't back up, then changing the subject when your bluff is called?
Bad-mouthing the opposition, then calling "foul" when it happens the other way round?

Sorry to point this out to you, but there is a reason you're the one getting the majority of aggressive posts, 'cause they're nearly all replies to something that if we didn't rebut, you'd take that as meaning you were right and had won whatever argument there was to win.

And that's not the first time in the past couple of days you've accused someone else of poor spelling or pointed out spelling/typos as part of the debate: if you carry on like this, I'm going to have to start applying the same technique to you, too (and you're welcome to try it back).

Let me guess... does it suggest making arguments you can't back up, then changing the subject when your bluff is called?
Bad-mouthing the opposition, then calling "foul" when it happens the other way round?




Not even close.  ''How to Defeat A Liberal'' tell you the basic liberal talking points here in America, and then gives you sources like newspaper articles, opinion polls, and statistics to counter it.  I've used the material on this website only once, a long time ago, and I noticed it was avoided.

I will, I just had to vent that, what DC struck a nerve.

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh's pamplet was famous.  I have it, it is called ''How to Defeat A Liberal.''  It can be effective.  Ann Coulter said on Hannity's show: ''If can't turn the liberal into a screaming mess, you're not doing it right.''  I guess I did it right.  Good points, Maxwell, I blew up.

I don't know how famous the Limbaugh pamphlet it, but obviously tens of millions of people have heard of it since he plugs it on his show.  I listened to Limbaugh regularly in the '90s.  I quit because I found him dull and predictable.  The right-wing show I miss that I can't get anymore is G. Gordon Liddy.  That's because Liddy really lets it rip.  He's a scary SOB! 

What you ought to understand about Hannity and Coulter and their fashion of arguing is that an indoctrinated fanatic always "wins" his argument.  It's exactly like arguing with card-carrying Communist Party members who've been to every Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Trotskyite seminar for years and years.  They have an "answer" for everything in their extremist world view.  It may not be a reasonable or nuanced answer, but it keeps them from ever giving the appearance of backing down.

Hannity and Coulter will spout off the same old rap about Reagan winning the Cold War, and Clinton causing the 2001 recession, and other yarns that are demonstrably false.  It doesn't matter how many times opponents show them up wrong, they just keep repeating the lies over and over.  That is fanatacism.  I have seen it myself when I used to hang out with extreme leftists.  Now the Right is doing it, but not at meetings in function hall basements, but on national broadcast media.

So, when Hannity, or Limbaugh, or Coulter, or Michael Reagan, or whoever THINK they've won the argument, most of viewing at home see them as just hysterical and silly. 

I sincerely believe Hannity and Coulter both have serious psychiatric problems.  I'm not being sarcastic.  I've watched them both for years, and I that's my honest conclusion.

I would like to see Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly go toe to toe in a debate with Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn.  They keep talking about how the left gets it wrong, and the left is on the wrong side of history, but when the "left" is represented by Alan Colmes, Lani Davis, and Geraldine Ferraro, well....

And that's not the first time in the past couple of days you've accused someone else of poor spelling or pointed out spelling/typos as part of the debate: if you carry on like this, I'm going to have to start applying the same technique to you, too (and you're welcome to try it back).


That is such a crock.  I can recall at least twice I have wanted to point you to your spelling mistakes but choose not to.  I can probably still dig them up if I wanted, but (unless you reply with a smarta** comment) it wouldn't be worth the effort.

That is such a crock.  I can recall at least twice I have wanted to point out some bad spelling mistakes you made but didn't
Oh...the magnanimity just bowls me over!
:D

I freely admit that I am not the world's greatest speller, and more, I'm a lousy typist (to big, clumbsy fingers that often hit the wrong key, or 2 at once).  So what?  I detect lots of spelling and typing errors in just about everybody's posts.  I just think it is stupid to take notice, unless the meaning isn't clear.

As to trying to get conservatives to leave, that  is an absolute crock.  In fact, Mushroom and I had a very nice private exchange in which I encouraged him to stay around.  I have had similar exchanges with RockandRollFan.  Both of those gentlemen READ what others have to say and are willing to see a point of view other than their own even if they remain  unconvinced.  Both of them also speak from the heart and with sincerity. 

Regarding GWB's "challange", I have no problem with keyboards at 20 paces.  I'll end here.  No insulting remark or rejoinder to that outburst, which I will refrain from characterizing.

That is such a crock. I can recall at least twice I have wanted to point you to your spelling mistakes but choose not to. I can probably still dig them up if I wanted, but (unless you reply with a smarta** comment) it wouldn't be worth the effort.

It would be a PITA to trawl through my posts looking for typos/spelling errors,  I agree.  But feel free to call me on any you see from now on, if you don't mind others doing the same to you.  However, it isn't a fair challenge as my job requires a high level of precision and I'm naturally predisposed to this kind of accuracy (it's inherited: my father has been known to look at a page of A4 and circle the errors without reading the text... I'm not quite *that* good).

But it ain't worth bringing up someone else's typos or spelling errors as part of the debate, unless it's relevant (like part of a post where they're criticizing someone else's, for example): I've grown to respect DC's posts for the thought behind them and their content, so long as the meaning is clear it doesn't really matter that the spelling or grammar ain't perfect.

Thank you Philbo, thank you Cheerleader.  A depreciates yous sup[port  ;)