If you don't vote for bills, it means
you don't like them.

AHA (As Daffy Duck would say)! Preposition Trouble! It's not that he didn't vote FOR bills, it's that he didn't vote ON bills.

If you like a bill, you vote FOR it. If you don't like a bill, you vote AGAINST it. If you don't vote on a bill at all, it can mean any of a number of things. In Kerry's case, it mostly means he's out on the campaign trail instead of doing his job as a Senator. Note that the second, third and fourth all-time vote-missers are also presidential candidates.

(Zell, of course, is a special case: as the rightmost Democrat in Congress, he frequently has to navigate the schism between his true feelings [right of president Bush] and his party affiliation, which probably accounts for his many missed votes. Or maybe he's just lazy.)

The difference between the money Kerry has raised from the telecommunications industry and the amount that Bush
has access to
his hardly comparable. Bush can outspend all of the money raised byt the Democratic contenders combined.

This is not really true; if the Democrats pooled all their money instead of running primaries, and selected a candidate at random, then let HIM raise money, they would most likely come out with more money than pres. Bush. But I understand the spirit of what you're saying: Bush will be able to outspend any Democrat. This is true, but it's not the point of the special-interest money concerns. The point is that, once elected, Kerry will owe the special interests consideration for their money.

You say,

"(1) Kerry voted with Bush on most of the issues that will be crucial in this campaign."

The is second-guessing what the voters feel will be the important
issues of the campaign.

Granted, but I think that Iraq, Patriot Act and Education Funding will be huge issues. Remember, I am one of "the voters."

"(2) Kerry has severe character questions involved in his treatment of his wives, which will inevitably be exploited by
Bush"

Prove it. Maybe we should get Kenneth Starr to investigate this. :)

No need. Bill Weld brought them up in the 1996 Senate race, and almost took out an incumbent Democratic senator in Massachusetts!

"(3) Kerry has taken more special interest money than any other senator in the last fifteen years."

What is the source of this assertion?

Washington Post, yesterday. I think it was on the front page, but it might have been a second page story. Definitely not op-ed.


I don't give much credibility to Newsweek articles.

Okay. That's your choice. I think the article raises important questions.

Actually, Dean has more money in his coffers than Kerry at this
time. Let's see where he got it and how he'll spend it.

He got it mainly from hundreds of thousands of Americans like me. I am glad to see you acknowedge that Dean does have more money, though. So many of the media outlets are claiming he's washed up because his fundraising will dry up soon. But the great thing about being funded by folks like me giving twenty or fifty bucks at a time is that we aren't swayed to give money only to the front-runner in the hopes of gettng something out of it. We just want our guy to win, and we trust him to take it from there.

I'll address YOUR next post in MY next post!