Don't hate John Kerry because he's a party animal

I think your criteria need revision if what you wrote above is true (sorry, but I haven't looked at your original post to read all of the criteria yet, I just saw your comments here so far and took exception below to the way in which I saw the scientific method being abused). To whit, you don't include amendments. I think we all understand that our legislative process is fraught with substantial delay and therefore moves at an agonizingly slow pace. Imagine if Senators were not able to adapt current legislation to something amenable to all. If you don't agree with a current bill, then you would have to introduce a brand new one with all of the committee assignments and unacceptable sections that would require others to fail it and submit their own new bill, in perpetuum.

Amendments are as important, if not more important, than the generation of new bills. A successful amendment often stands as the cornerstone of bipartisan decision making. While the majority may have dropped an audacious hack of a bill on the minority's desk knowing it will pass as is, the minority may be able to rein in some of the wilder charges within the bill with an amendment that both can agree to, likely under threat of filibuster by the minority. Thus, the minority Senator who is able to have amendments passed has accomplished as much as the bill's originator, especially in light of the two-party strategics our government is trapped within.

Furthermore, I believe there are politics that a "bill count" method will not encompass. How many bills did Kerry come up with, but Kennedy was allowed to bring to the chamber? Kennedy's seniority and considerable clout with the Republicans would have given those bills a much better chance than if a recently failed presidential candidate (who spent months hammering on the ugly side of Republican policy makers) had brought the issue up instead. Kerry would end up as a cosponsor that you have ignored and there's little way for you or I to know which, if any, these bills were as well. For you, that means you have accepted to not only lose them from Kerry's list of contributions, but doubly in error, ascribe them to Kennedy thus driving further the difference by which you measure the two Senators' usefulness. Conjointly, in the past 9.5 years that you are measuring, Kerry was a presidential candidate for a good portion of that time. This means time was spent away from legislation and on the campaign trail (for example, by my account, I can only find 1 sponsored bill introduced by John McCain in 2008 and it was a campaign ploy to remove the gas tax). I find his participation in the 2004 campaign to be meaningful politically, even though it may have taken away from his participation legislatively. Either way, that time lost from his role in the Senate is attributed by your conclusion to a lack of "hard work as a Senator" as opposed to substantial hard work as a Presidential Nominee.

From what is discussed here, anyways, I don't believe your criteria accurately reflect what it takes to be a "hard-working" Senator and they certainly don't reflect what it takes to be a "hard working" politician.

Don't tell me you are going to be the next Elaine Donnelly here are you? Someone who very much likes to talk about DEFENDING SERVICE MEMBERS but has absolutely no dog in any dogfight whatsoever.

SwirlyGrrl, formerly USNR

You preach beliefs you do not follow; that is hypocrisy. If you believe it is wrong to diminish the service of servicemen, then you should not diminish the service of Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry.

Lt Kerry was called before Congress, sworn to tell the truth, and asked questions. He answered those questions truthfully and served his country honorably in doing so, yet you question that.

Do you hate all the servicemen who came home from Vietnam, or just the ones who told the truth about what happened there?

Your distillation of it, however, was not. You manufactured your complaint. You crafted it by going through his legislative record and applying your own arbitrary criteria on what work counted so as to create the impression of an objective proof of your subjective opinion of John Kerry. But your criteria was purely subjective so all you proved as that you don't much like John Kerry. Fine. You're allowed to. The people of the Commonwealth have shown a number of times that they disagree. Which they are allowed to, as well. They key is that you can't prop up your subjective opinion by claiming it is an objective fact. Your review of Kerry's legislative record was dripping in bias and all it does is show how you feel about John Kerry. It doesn't show anything objectively about John Kerry's actual service in the Senate.

admitted that I think Kennedy is very productive. At no point have I commented on the content of the actual legislation, proposed or passed. I said point blank that while I don't like either, I believe Kennedy is far more productive.

"It's not a lie if you believe it!"

Kidding aside you either aren't reading my comments in full or you just want to pick.

I don't like either Senator.

I think Kerry is not productive.

I think Kennedy is productive.

There are plenty of issues that are not right or left, they are only pro-Massachusetts or not. On those issues, Kennedy does more for Massachusetts.

I can separate how I feel about both men personally otherwise I would not be able to acknowledge anything positive about Kennedy's record.