How did Kerry get re-elected for 4 terms as U.S. Senator?

OK, so John Kerry has been a U.S. Senator (D-MA) for 20 years, or 3 1/3 terms now. But, if he was only around 40% of the time, and only voted that often, how did he explain that to the people of his district in Massachusetts when it came time to re-elect him?


Showing up for the job is the first requirement for my vote, and I know I'd vote against any incumbent, regardless of party, in my district who rarely showed up for the job to represent my community & I. So, how did Kerry do it? What other U.S. Congress members have a record of not showing up for the job, and how do any of them get away with it when it comes to election time?

its the only needed word.

Massachusetts


Land of Barney Frank!
Any questions?


[edit on 11-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
its the only needed word.

Massachusetts


Land of Barney Frank!
Any questions?

Who is Barney Frank? And is Massachusetts really that corrupt?

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by edsinger
its the only needed word.

Massachusetts


Land of Barney Frank!
Any questions?

Who is ? And is Massachusetts really that corrupt?

Barney Frank is a gay congressman. In fact, then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, on the House floor, called him "Barney Fag".

EDIT: I take it you don't like gay congressmen, edsinger.



[edit on 12-10-2004 by curme]

I have some friends from MA and they ask the same question! They said there is a running joke that they only time Kerry is visible is when he is up for re-election. And every election he is behind in the polls until the 11th hour and then somehow he is able to pull ahead and win.

Is anyone from MA and can you confirm any of this?

Jemison

This is answered simply by how the US Congress works (I should say "doesn't" work). The Senators who have been there for multiple terms, get on the most powerful committees, and therefore are in a position of power for their constituents. Because the voters don't want to lose this power, by electing a new Senator (and thus lose the committee seat, and the influence), they re-elect year after year...

Can you say Ted Kennedy?

For an excellent example of this, watch (and pay attention) to Eddie Murphy's "Distinguished Gentleman" as it does a SUPERB job of illustrating how Congress works....(or doesn't).

Originally posted by edsinger
its the only needed word.

You beat me to it, edsinger. Any state that votes for the likes of Barney Frank will just about vote for anyone that's immoral and unpatriotic!

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by edsinger
its the only needed word.

You beat me to it, edsinger.

Any state that votes for the likes of Barney Frank will just about vote for anyone that's immoral and unpatriotic!

I'm confused. Are you say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be public officials?

I'm confused. Are you say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be public officials?

No, he's ragging on Massachusets....

Originally posted by curme

EDIT: I take it you don't like gay congressmen, edsinger.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by curme]

Well definitely not child molesting ones, the 'boy' was 15 at the time.

BTW, he got away with it.........gay or not...Wrong.

Originally posted by Gazrok
This is answered simply by how the US Congress works (I should say "doesn't" work). The Senators who have been there for multiple terms, get on the most powerful committees, and therefore are in a position of power for their constituents. Because the voters don't want to lose this power, by electing a new Senator (and thus lose the committee seat, and the influence), they re-elect year after year...

Can you say Ted Kennedy?

Gazrok has nailed it. Mass= Kennedy country. Kerry= Kennedy's boy. Watch how Teddy fawns over him in public. Take it from somebody who had the prodigal Senator representing him for over 10 years.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Gazrok has nailed it. Mass= Kennedy country. Kerry= Kennedy's boy. Watch how Teddy fawns over him in public. Take it from somebody who had the prodigal Senator representing him for over 10 years.

Ouch. It sounds like the Kennedys run Massachusetts like it's their personal playground -- and no one can stop them. When was the last time Massachusetts had a fresh set of Senators and Representatives, anyway? Isn't it about time?

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
When was the last time Massachusetts had a fresh set of Senators and Representatives, anyway? Isn't it about time?

It's long overdue. There are some rising stars on the political landscape, including Mitt Romney, currently the governor of Mass.

Kerry came close to losing his bid for Senator to William Weld, and would have, had Ted Kennedy not thrown his weight behind him.

I hail from the State of Massachusetts. I also hail from the congressional district that Mr. Barney Frank represents.

I would suggest that if you are not represented by either of these two men...AND you cannot intelligently comment on what they have or have not done for my state / district without having to look it up via Google.....then what business is it of yours to degrade or criticise those who vote them into office?

Ted Kennedy may be a left-wing Democrat with socialist tendencies, but for every person that votes for a Ted Kennedy, there is a person voting for a Trent Lott, or a Newt Gingrich, or a Jesse Helms for that matter. Those people who voted for those individuals supported them for a number of different reasons, but despite the fact that you may despise or dislike their politics and behavior, that doesn't give anyone the right to belittle or criticize the voters who execised their constitutional right to elect them to office. Especiallly if you don't even live in their districts or states. Ted Kennedy spends very little time in Massachusetts, except during the summer and holidays. There are plenty of democrats in our state (Tom Finneran, Tom Reilly, Tom Menino) to keep us busy with their politics.

And let me say just this: while I have never personally not voted for Ted Kennedy, I will say this about the man: in 42 years of service to this state and country (which is far longer than most of the people in this thread have been alive - I'm willing to wager), he has never chaged his position on important issues and has always championed the causes of our state. That is why he is reelected. He may be mocked, despised, and a source of occasional embarrasment, but when it comes right down to it - he brings home the bacon. That is the ultimate litmus test for electing a state senator.

Barney Frank is an intelligent and resourceful member of congress who is reelected for the same reasons. I have personally corresponded with him on multiple occasions, and he replies (by dictated letter) every time. While a recognized expert in banking and financial matters, he is also a "closet" expert in terrorism and internal security - he is currently the senior democrat on the Select Committee for Homeland Security in the House. I have communicated with him on a number of topics from appointments in the FBI to national security and intelligence policy. He is astute and responsive. Anyone who suggests that he is unpatriotic doesn't know their a$$ from their elbow. I have voted for him more than once (but not at every opportunity). I would suggest that those who are taking pot shots from the peanut gallery should go learn the issues at hand in the 4th district, and stop being a keyboard cowboy with Google at the quick-draw.

BTW, the people of MA elected Mitt Romney (Rebublican) for govenor and we do like him. He does a nice job at administering our executive government, and is a good couterbalance to a democratic-heavy legislature. However, he will NEVER be elected to represent this state at in the Senate (Congress....maybe...but a long shot). Massachusetts is not in the habit of electing right-wing, religiously conservative (devout Mormon), tax-breaks-for-the-rich, socially exclusive pesons to represent them. The only reason Bill Weld got alot of support is was because he was fiscally conservative, while being socially liberal. If more republicans were like Bill Weld, the GOP would roll every time there was an election. But, unfortunately for them, they have been blinded by the influences of big industry money and Christian conservatism.



[edit on 14-10-2004 by Pyros]

You have voted Pyros for the Way Above Top Secret award.


A great piece Pyro's.

Originally posted by Pyros
He may be mocked, despised, and a source of occasional embarrasment, but when it comes right down to it - he brings home the bacon. That is the ultimate litmus test for electing a state senator.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Pyros]

In other words, he brings federal dollars to his state by getting "pork barrel politics" legislation that funnels money from other states into his own state.

THAT is precisely what is wrong with representative democracies. A senator holds an office with national impact, yet only "serves" his own state.

And you do fine ragging on Texans and their choice of elected officials. Amazing that you chastise posters for mocking massachussets, and then mock your opponents in the same post.

I am shocked! (heehee)

In other words, he brings federal dollars to his state by getting "pork barrel politics" legislation that funnels money from other states into his own state.

THAT is precisely what is wrong with representative democracies. A senator holds an office with national impact, yet only "serves" his own state.

And you do fine ragging on Texans and their choice of elected officials. Amazing that you chastise posters for mocking massachussets, and then mock your opponents in the same post.

I am shocked! (heehee)

So, am I to assume by your analysis that a "good" senator puts the interests of the nation above the interests of his own state? And that a "good" senator allows other states to have a greater share of federal tax income at the expense of his own constituants? You should go back a re-read your early American history and re-discover just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when it comes to states rights versus a strong, centrallized federal government.

And I was not specifically picking on any states. I just mentioned those Congressmen because they are well-known right-wing conservatives who have been involved in controversies in the past.

(Psst! By the way....none of those men are from Texas.......)

(so.....tempted......to....make....smart....a$$....remark.....must....hold....back!)

Kennedy and Kerry bring home the bacon, alright. Just look at the Big Dig.

Mitt Romney would have an excellent chance at being elected Senator. When Kennedy's time is over, a Republican will replace him.

What I can't understand is this... how can you guys claim to be strong and united as a nation and yet rail on a state, claiming its people clearly vote for anyone who's "immoral and unpatriotic"?

Another thing I don't understand... why has the debate now become a festival of accusations on the people of the other party being "unpatriotic"?

From what I see on this site, you guys are going into a slippery slope where simply being a Democrat will be synonymous with being "unpatriotic and immoral".

Does the nation with the expressed goal of spreading democracy around the world really want to become a single-party state?

Originally posted by Otts

From what I see on this site, you guys are going into a slippery slope where simply being a Democrat will be synonymous with being "unpatriotic and immoral".

Does the nation with the expressed goal of spreading democracy around the world really want to become a single-party state?

Did you miss the "occasional" rare post about how Bush is a lying baby killer in bed with big oil?

Or are you partial towards Democrats?