Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Don't Hate John Kerry Because He's a Party Guy...

******UPDATE****big long-ass update at the bottom*****Hate him because he's a jackass.
This pic and others surfaced on TMZ. You can see the rest here. This nonsense launched THREE articles in the Herald and all kinds of radio coverage. OK, get a grip, some girls spotted him in a public place and asked for pics. Nothing more, nothing less. All this coverage for nonsense!

Boston is buzzing over this while no one cares that our junior Senator does NOTHING for Massachusetts. No one is covering the fact that he has only sponsored 8 bills in the (*please insert the word "last" here*)9.....nine.....NINE years he has been in the Senate (*please insert the words "that went anywhere" here*). Can we get a little coverage of that? (***UPDATE***Turns out I was wrong. Thanks to Charly on the MTA I see it wasn't 8 bills in the last nine years, it was 7 bills in the last nine and a half years. Thanks Charly!)

How about just despising him because he is an incredible liar? How about abhoring him because he is a cheat and a buffoon who diminishes the service of others?

I loathe John Kerry. No one thinks less of John Kerry than I do. But getting worked up about these pics is just nonsense.

This is what's wrong with politics and the media - coverage for this, but nothing serious, balanced and in depth about things that matter. How many more people know that John Kerry was in Nantucket last weekend than know the who their own state rep is????????????
****************UPDATE*****************
Ok, from the comments.
Charly on the MTA

Maggie, "incredible liar", huh?

You said, "No one is covering the fact that he has only sponsored 8 bills in the 9.....nine.....NINE years he has been in the Senate. Can we get a little coverage of that?"

I'd like to point out that Kerry has been in the Senate since 1984. That's, like, 24 years. Not "nine.....NINE" (repeated for emphasis in case anyone didn't realize how wrong you were the first time.)

And then I'd like you to go to the legislative tracker at thomas.loc.gov, and you will find that Kerry has sponsored *191* bills in *this legislative session alone*.

How about not dishing laughably false info on your site? How about you correct yourself?

My Response
Charley I'll play it your way. It'll take a while, but I don't mind.

My statement wasn't clear enough. Kerry has sponsored and cosponsored many pieces of legislation. But that's deceiving. I only want to count stuff that actually became law and could be considered legislation.

You asked me to go to thomas.loc.gov and see that Kerry has sponsored 191 bills in this session alone. I did. There were *2*.
How?
Pull up the list yourself.
First cut out the ones that were just amendments.
Next the bills that were resolutions or something "expressing our sense" or congratulating the Celtics.
Now cut anything that went into limbo.
And finally, what do you have left?
*2*

S.1784 and S.3029

Pitiful.

I don't consider my statements to be "laughably false" (although it's my site and I can dish whatever the hell I want).
I think it's "laughably false" to point to "Kerry has sponsored *191* bills in *this legislative session alone*." When in reality *2* count.

**********************************************
OK, so Charly asked me to go to Thomas.loc.gov...........and I did.
That was for the current 110th Congress. (2007 - 2008)
Charly's way - 191
Maggie's way - 2

Now here's the 109th Congress (2005 - 2006)
Charly's way - 140 bills sponsored in the 2 year time frame.
Maggie's way - (no amendments, no fluff, no limbo) *1*
S.1999 - some housekeeping to be sure, but it was legitimate legislation.
S.1999 Title: A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to transfer the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor, to enhance the program, and for other purposes.
Kerry took a working program, changed nothing about it except for the fact that YouthBuild now comes under the purview of Dept. of Labor instead of HUD.....my heart is aflutter.
**************
Back - We are up to the 108th Congress (2003-2004)
Charly's way - 48 bills sponsored
Maggie's way - Zip.
**************
Once again - I can't believe I am still looking, I should be in bed, LOL so much for pulling my shit together.
The 107th Congress (2001 - 2002)
Charly's way - 146 bills sponsored
Maggie's way - 3! He was busy
S.856
S.1609
S.2428
************************************
It's nearly midnight, but I am a jackass...........so here I am perusing Thomas.loc.gov and reading John Kerry's legislative record.
We're up to the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000)
*****Wait this reminds me! Charly did have one good point. I did mess up on the post. I do have something to correct. He pointed out that I said "9 years" and I made a big deal of it and Kerry has been in the Senate since 1985. Which is really 24 years (well he really said 1984, but then he came out and corrected himself.). Ok, anyway, he is correct and Kerry has (*sob*) been my Senator for 23 and half years. My mistake was that I left out some words. It was supposed to say "No one is covering the fact that he has only sponsored 8 bills in the last 9.....nine.....NINE years he has been in the Senate that went anywhere." See? I left out the words "last" and "went anywhere". My apologies and in the words of one of my favorite Navy blogger, Phibian, "Me fixie"
**********************
Ok, back to the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000)
Charly's way -63
Maggie's way - 1
S.791

Tada! For those of you keeping score at home, we are up to 7 bills.....9 and a 1/2 years. My original post said 8 bills in 9 years.....I wasn't counting 2008 but it's in here now.

I was wrong, it's even more pathetic. Not 8 bills in 9 years............7 in 9 and half years.

Ball's in your court Charly. You go slog through this shit. I'm done. See if you can refute it now. BTW, don't come back with any nonsense like the statue for Rosa Parks, or the honoring of Father Robert Drinan or the Congressional gold medal for Jackie Robinson. I want only real stuff. Some of the links to describe the bills come from Wikipedia because the links at Thomas were hosed. But getting the actual info on which bills he sponsored and what happened to them came from Thomas. I read through all of it and I am consoling myself with M&Ms.

10 comments:

Galrahn said...

I've shared drinks with Bill Clinton, and I will be straight up honest.

That guy is great at parties.

BostonMaggie said...

LOL!!!! So am I but I shouldn't be President or Senator.

Charley on the MTA said...

Maggie, "incredible liar", huh?

You said, "No one is covering the fact that he has only sponsored 8 bills in the 9.....nine.....NINE years he has been in the Senate. Can we get a little coverage of that?"

I'd like to point out that Kerry has been in the Senate since 1984. That's, like, 24 years. Not "nine.....NINE" (repeated for emphasis in case anyone didn't realize how wrong you were the first time.)

And then I'd like you to go to the legislative tracker at thomas.loc.gov, and you will find that Kerry has sponsored *191* bills in *this legislative session alone*.

How about not dishing laughably false info on your site? How about you correct yourself?

Charley on the MTA said...

Actually, a correction. Kerry was elected in '84, started serving in '85, to be precise.

BostonMaggie said...

Charley I'll play it your way. It'll take a while, but I don't mind.

My statement wasn't clear enough. Kerry has sponsored and cosponsored many pieces of legislation. But that's deceiving. I only want to count stuff that actually became law and could be considered legislation.

You asked me to go to thomas.loc.gov and see that Kerry has sponsored 191 bills in this session alone. I did. There were *2*.
How?
Pull up the list yourself.
First cut out the ones that were just amendments.
Next the bills that were resolutions or something "expressing our sense" or congratulating the Celtics.
Now cut anything that went into limbo.
And finally, what do you have left?

*2*
S.1784 and S.3029

Pitiful.

I don't consider my statements to be "laughably false" (although it's my site and I can dish whatever the hell I want). I think it's "laughably false" to point to "Kerry has sponsored *191* bills in *this legislative session alone*." When in reality *2* count.

BostonMaggie said...

ok Charly...go back to the post, I am updating. I am up to 3 actual pieces of legislation in 3.5 years.

Minicapt said...

Some one did a check during the 2004 period and found Sen Kerry listed as lea on seven items of legislation, of which five were for naming Post Offices and such.

You might ask 'Charley' for a list of significant bills for which Sen Kerry is the lead sponsor, vice those for which he is a member of the crowd. Not the Kerry "Protect Your Children By Naming Post Offices Consistantly" bill.

Cheers

AFSister said...

I don't hate party animals either- just assholes like Kerry, Murtha and Pelosi.

Stella said...

LOL, Maggie, I have no idea why the Dems chose Kerry. Hell, we could have done better.

The conservatives have much in common with the progressives: both feel the same way about Pelosi. I'm all the more embarrassed because she's from my home state. We could have done much better in the House, too.

All my best to you.

BostonMaggie said...

Stella - Exactly. I have received a lot of angry responses on this from Dems who say I am saying this because I don't like him personally.....wrong. I loathe Ted Kennedy and I will happily concede he is very productive as a legislator. They say if he were successful I would just beef about his policies. Maybe, but while I dislike Ted Kennedy's politics, I concede he gets a lot of things done for Massachusetts. Some politics isn't right or left....it's local. Finally they point out Republican Senators who are useless.....that is very likely, but they are not my Senator.

The point of the post is that MY Senator is useless and MY local newspapers pay more attention to this crap (pics of partying college kids) than something substantial like his voting record.