Distorting the record

shereads

Sloganless
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Posts
19,242
GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions

By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01


Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.

As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.

For instance:

¥ Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.

¥ Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)

¥ President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.

In remarks prepared for delivery last night, Kerry denounced the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and criticized Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the statements made by convention speakers, though he declined to address details beyond supplying the campaign's citations of votes. "Whether it was in the '70s, '80s or '90s, Sen. Kerry has demonstrated a general pattern of hostility to a strong national defense," Holt said.

Votes cast by lawmakers are often twisted by political opponents, and both political parties are adept at combing through legislative records to score political points. Former senator Robert J. Dole's voting record was frequently distorted by the Clinton campaign eight years ago -- as well as by his GOP rivals for the Republican nomination.

One document frequently cited by Republicans is a 350-word article in the Boston Globe, written when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts and battling to win the Democratic nomination for senator in 1984 -- a period of soaring deficits in the wake of a huge defense buildup by President Ronald Reagan. Calling for a "strong defense," the article said, Kerry proposed to slow the rate of growth in defense spending by canceling 27 weapons systems, in part to reduce the deficit and also restore cuts Reagan had made in domestic programs.

While Cheney said Kerry opposed Reagan's "major defense initiatives," the campaign does not cite any votes against such defense programs while Reagan was president, relying instead on a campaign speech before he was elected senator.

Six years later, Kerry took part in a complex and serious debate in Congress over how to restructure the military after the Cold War.

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.


On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."

Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."

Appearing on CNN, Miller said he had "gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about."

Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.

Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.

"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.

Kerry's vote last year against the administration's $87 billion proposal to fund troops in Iraq and pay for Iraqi reconstruction has also been the focus of Republican attacks. "My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," Bush said last night.

Kerry actually supported all those things, but as part of a different version of the bill opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line.

In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground -- "I support our troops in Iraq and their mission" -- but faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction. He complained that administration "has only given us a set of goals and vague timetables, not a detailed plan."

Yesterday, the State Department said that only $1 billion of that money has been spent in the 11 months since the bill was passed.
 
Last edited:
Did you catch the post-speech interview with Zell Miller?

Good Christ.

Barking dog rabid.
 
They do it because it works.

About 2 and a half weeks ago before they started distorting Kerry

And Today


The fact that many Americans fall for this shit and the fact that the media has gone silent on the grave international crimes committed by our country at the president and defense secretary's orders. These being the flouting of the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib and other camps (the place where we among more publicized offenses, raped 8-year old boys in front of their mothers. Oddly the liberal media does not report this in their "zeal to topple Bush" though a non-existent wing of Reagan's S&L scam was enough to start an 8-year long media frenzy over Clinton)


Overall, this election is straining that part of me that wants to say fuck it all, it's stupid politics, why lose friends over it. The other part is saying "my god idiots will be in charge of whether or not our country puts itself back together again or declares war on the world".

On a lighter note, distortion shows that the Bush team is cleaning up their act and coming out of the land of pure bullshit and transparent lies that were their sole domain earlier in the year. Perhaps with great luck and effort, we'll get to the grievous Clinton level of defining the word "is".

Oh and for the swingers: Ron Reagan on Bush (that bastion of liberalism that he is)


Okay, that's my quota on poly threads for as long as I can hold in. I apologize to Colly and Colly alone for yet again submitting to base political ranting. (I'll get better I swear, probably just after November when I drink myself into oblivion no matter which rich white pro-business guy wins)
 
Jeez, Lucifer, those map diagrams are scary.

It sure looks like Bush can hold on, and be "the strong, decisive leader," and Americans just don't have that much experience to the contrary.

Barring the fall of Baghdad or seizure of White House daycare by Chechens, I'd say Bush will win.
 
Pure said:
. . . or seizure of White House daycare by Chechens . . .

That statement isn't funny.

There may be 200 dead children.

I stopped watching the news today because of the horrific images.
 
Pure said:
Jeez, Lucifer, those map diagrams are scary.

It sure looks like Bush can hold on, and be "the strong, decisive leader," and Americans just don't have that much experience to the contrary.

Barring the fall of Baghdad or seizure of White House daycare by Chechens, I'd say Bush will win.

What's scary is how much Kerry lost and how quickly. He was up to shoe-in levels with lots of Nader voters to swing back to the Dems. All of a sudden after a few obviously fradulent attacks by the repubs, he's floundering by a narrow margin.
 
The human mind has great powers of denial.

When do you suppose Germans turned against Hitler, or at least wondered about further supporting him? When their cities started to blaze.

When did the Brits turn against Thatcher? After a long time (15 years?) and serious declines in several areas, including pollution of drinking water.

I can only assume the Reddies just don't feel the declines much, or, as in all wars, the initial thing (among the few who've had losses, in this case [1000 families]) is 'my son/daughter died, so let it not be in vain, let's keep the young persons over there to finish the job and reach the noble goal."

----
Note to Sarah,

That statement isn't funny.

Seizures of kids is certainly NOT funny. Who said it was? It's happened in a couple other places, before. It was simply given as an example of an obvious security breach that Cheney et al. couldn't explain away.
 
Pure said:

Note to Sarah,

That statement isn't funny.

Seizures of kids is certainly NOT funny. Who said it was? It's happened in a couple other places, before. It was simply given as an example of an obvious security breach that Cheney et al. couldn't explain away.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted, but it seemed to be a glib statement like the rest of your post.

Parents with young children are horrified at the news.
 
Absent from the Republican convention was any mention of Osama Bin Laden, who is still at large after 3 years, while we're bogged down in Iraq fighting the people who live there.

---dr.M.
 
And did you see Zell Miller? What the hell is wrong with that man? I could feel the rabid spit flying from his mouth even through my TV screen.

---dr.M.
 
Yes, his hate-filled spewing was absolutely frightening.

Did you see John McCain on "The Daily Show" later that evening?

McCain didn't even attempt to explain Miller. His first statement was just a mild "I guess Kerry must have shot his dog or something."
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
Yes, his hate-filled spewing was absolutely frightening.

Did you see John McCain on "The Daily Show" later that evening?

McCain didn't even attempt to explain Miller. His first statement was just a mild "I guess Kerry must have shot his dog or something."

Yeah, McCain was great. What a decent guy.

Arnold also scared me. I don't know whether it was his lauding of Nixon as "a breath of fresh air" or the way he stood declaiming behind that podium with his Austrian accent, but I could just hear the jackboots in the street.

---dr.M.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Yeah, McCain was great. What a decent guy.

Arnold also scared me. I don't know whether it was his lauding of Nixon as "a breath of fresh air" or the way he stood declaiming behind that podium with his Austrian accent, but I could just hear the jackboots in the street.

---dr.M.

And Arnold's already fulfilling the party line with his accidental distorting of history.
 
Campaign ads are designed to get votes. They are slick, glitzy pr. Neither side really pays much attention to the full scope & context of the facts. In historical context, this has been a very mild campaign in terms of mud slinging and out right lies.

Here in NY, I have seen two ads that play up Kerry's purple hearts and his war record. Neither mention his protest activities afterwards. Distortion works both ways and neither side has a monopoly on it.

Interestingly, I have seen no counter ad by Kerry's campaign that seeks to explain his voting record. In fact, the only place I have seen anyone try to explain it is here in these forums. I watch very little tv and prefer my Cd player to the radio, so I haven't had nearly enough exposure to know how things are going in the campaign or polls. I can say I haven't seen a single GWB ad, but have seen several Kerry ads. I don't supose that's too strange, given that this state is a democratic stronghold.

My overall impression thus far is that Kerry will probably carry the popular vote, but will probably still loose the election. Attack ads work. They have worked historically. I doubt either side will back off them at this juncture.

-Colly
 
I am looking forward to this election more than I have looked forward to an election for the last 25 years. I want so badly to vote the present lot of rascals out of office.
 
Colly said,

//Here in NY, I have seen two ads that play up Kerry's purple hearts and his war record. Neither mention his protest activities afterwards.//

Only in America. A 'war protest' is unpatriotic, even traitorous.
*Even where the war is generally admitted to be a mistake, for example by McNamara who orchestrated it.*

It's just *traitorous* that Kerry was against the war 20 years before McNamara!
 
Pure said:
Colly said,

//Here in NY, I have seen two ads that play up Kerry's purple hearts and his war record. Neither mention his protest activities afterwards.//

Only in America. A 'war protest' is unpatriotic, even traitorous.
*Even where the war is generally admitted to be a mistake, for example by McNamara who orchestrated it.*

It's just *traitorous* that Kerry was against the war 20 years before McNamara!

Reguardless of your belief on protests, it isn't exactly good press in this country. I don't think it has been since Mclellan ran against Lincoln on an anti-war platform. I note he got beat soundly.

The question here was not the value of protest, it was distorting facts to give an impression. If you play up his war record, and ignore his protest activites, you are just as guilty of distorting the facts as those who play up his protest activites and ignore his war record.

Two sides to the same coin. Democrats being just as guilty of distortion as the GOP.

-Colly
 
Colleen Thomas said:

Two sides to the same coin. Democrats being just as guilty of distortion as the GOP.

-Colly

I completely agree.

However, I think the GOP machine works much better.

And they get those buzzwords out so fast to all involved. You know, the people who'll be appearing on talk shows or giving a few news clips?

I remember hearing "most liberal voter in the Senate" over and over by many, many different people the day after Kerry's win as nominee.

It was amazing.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I completely agree.

However, I think the GOP machine works much better.

And they get those buzzwords out so fast to all involved. You know, the people who'll be appearing on talk shows or giving a few news clips?

I remember hearing "most liberal voter in the Senate" over and over by many, many different people the day after Kerry's win as nominee.

It was amazing.

I think you have a point and a strong one. The GOP has done a much better job in the last few years of controlling the media. I don't know what happened to the geniuses who ran Clinton's campaigns, but the guys who ran Gore and are now running Kerry seem to be significantly inferior.

Then to, the GOP has an advantage, their core voters are a much more homogenous group than the Democrats. On a lot of issues, Kerry has his hands tied. He can't speak out strongly pro or con without risking alientating part of his support base. Bush can be a bull in the china shop, taking stands that would be prohibitively costly if he was trying to appeal to a diverse group of voters.

Since Bush can and does take machismo driven stances, the GOP PR team can play up his decisiveness vs. Kerry's seeming indecision. I think right now if you were an ad company executive you would be significantly happier to land the GOP campaign over the Democrats. It's a lot easier to appeal to a group with very little differential dynamic than it is to a group that has such a dispatite makeup.

-Colly
 
Colleen Thomas said:
The question here was not the value of protest, it was distorting facts to give an impression. If you play up his war record, and ignore his protest activites, you are just as guilty of distorting the facts as those who play up his protest activites and ignore his war record.


Well, I don’t know just what Kerry’s accused of distorting, but if it’s his contention that our troops committed atrocities in Viet Nam, that’s no distortion. There were atrocities on both sides, as anyone who read the papers back then can tell you. My Lai is a historical fact, and only the tip of the iceberg. I didn’t go to Viet Nam, but I worked with guys who did and I heard their war stories. I personally worked with a guy who had come back from Nam with a bag of human ears that he offered to bring to work, and a friend of mine was there when a 12 year old boy was thrown out of a helicopter with his hands tied behind his back.

Fragging—the killing of American officers by the enlisted men under their command who were no longer willing to put their lives on the line for an unjust and immoral war—is also a matter of record. The most popular method was rolling a live grenade into the officer’s tent when he slept.

War is hell, especially a guerilla war, which is why Abu Ghraib didn’t surprise me one bit, and it sickens me now to see people trying to portray Viet Nam as some noble venture on our part that was betrayed by sniveling peaceniks and turncoats. It was wrong, immoral, obscene and shameful, and I bless every single sole who had the fucking courage to stand up and say so.

America has been wrong in the past, dreadfully and terribly wrong on occasion. Read your history. Our government has lied to and manipulated us, and putting on a uniform doesn’t automatically make a person a hero or an angel. That fact is that there were atrocities. Tons of them.

There are 10,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, many of them women and children, and who killed them? Was it the president? Was it you and I for electing this president? Or was it the boys in uniform doing what they were told to do and dropping bombs on them?

In either case they’re dead and they were guilty of nothing. That’s an atrocity to me.

---dr.M.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Well, I don’t know just what Kerry’s accused of distorting, but if it’s his contention that our troops committed atrocities in Viet Nam, that’s no distortion. There were atrocities on both sides, as anyone who read the papers back then can tell you. My Lai is a historical fact, and only the tip of the iceberg. I didn’t go to Viet Nam, but I worked with guys who did and I heard their war stories. I personally worked with a guy who had come back from Nam with a bag of human ears that he offered to bring to work, and a friend of mine was there when a 12 year old boy was thrown out of a helicopter with his hands tied behind his back.

Fragging—the killing of American officers by the enlisted men under their command who were no longer willing to put their lives on the line for an unjust and immoral war—is also a matter of record. The most popular method was rolling a live grenade into the officer’s tent when he slept.

War is hell, especially a guerilla war, which is why Abu Ghraib didn’t surprise me one bit, and it sickens me now to see people trying to portray Viet Nam as some noble venture on our part that was betrayed by sniveling peaceniks and turncoats. It was wrong, immoral, obscene and shameful, and I bless every single sole who had the fucking courage to stand up and say so.

America has been wrong in the past, dreadfully and terribly wrong on occasion. Read your history. Our government has lied to and manipulated us, and putting on a uniform doesn’t automatically make a person a hero or an angel. That fact is that there were atrocities. Tons of them.

There are 10,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, many of them women and children, and who killed them? Was it the president? Was it you and I for electing this president? Or was it the boys in uniform doing what they were told to do and dropping bombs on them?

In either case they’re dead and they were guilty of nothing. That’s an atrocity to me.

---dr.M.

The only thing I accused anyone of was distorting the facts to try and win votes, Doc. This thread stared by levying the charge that GOP was doing this and convienintly ignored the fact that the Democrats are just as guilty. I simply pointed that out.

If you are going to play up his war record and ignore his protest activites, in an attempt to convince voters who think he is anti-military that he isn't, then you are just as guilty of distortion of the facts as the GOP who play up his protest record in an attempt to prove he is anti-military.

I was careful in my posts not to take a stand, pro or anti protest or pro or anti Kerry. We have covered that ground several times and I didn't think a rehash was in anyone's best interest. I confined my statements to the thread topic of distorting the facts in election ads. Knowing how I feel, I assume it is easy to read something into my words, but I assure you, nothing was intended beyond pointing out that both parties are distorting the facts in their ads.

-Colly
 
On the other hand, it is nice that the conversation has moved on from there.

I wish Kerry had stuck by his antiwar stand. He went originally from a principle, that serving one's country is good; and he then pointed out that the war was wrong, again a principled action for which he had more cause than most, having been there. The Bush team neither fought the war nor opposed it, because their principle was to save their hides.

He had every opportunity to claim that past. But the election turns out to be about a war thirty and thirty-five years ago.


It'll take a lot of nose holding to vote for Kerry.
 
I'm open to correction, but I can't recall seeing any ads where Bush's position on anything has been intentionally misrepresented by democrats.

I'm open to examples though.

---dr.M.
 
Last edited:
One of the biggest problems in American government is that our elected representatives don't actually 'represent' their constituencies. As a young student in elementary school learning about democracy vs. every other kind of government, I had formed the mistaken impression that the people we elect into office are supposed to champion the positions of the people who elected them.

As an example, only one member of Congress voted against going to war in Iraq despite the massive protests across the country. One. After she was vilified in the press for her opposing vote, she explained that she had a duty and responsibility to represent her District, and the people in her District were opposed to going to war with Iraq.

I fault our Congress for failing to live up to their responsibilities and failing to adequately represent the views of the people who elected them. I fault Americans for not holding their representatives accountable, and for gullibly swallowing the disingenuous rhetoric spewed by both parties. Kerry and Bush represent their political parties and ambitions; neither represents me.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Campaign ads are designed to get votes. They are slick, glitzy pr. Neither side really pays much attention to the full scope & context of the facts. In historical context, this has been a very mild campaign in terms of mud slinging and out right lies.

Here in NY, I have seen two ads that play up Kerry's purple hearts and his war record. Neither mention his protest activities afterwards. Distortion works both ways and neither side has a monopoly on it.

Interestingly, I have seen no counter ad by Kerry's campaign that seeks to explain his voting record. In fact, the only place I have seen anyone try to explain it is here in these forums. I watch very little tv and prefer my Cd player to the radio, so I haven't had nearly enough exposure to know how things are going in the campaign or polls. I can say I haven't seen a single GWB ad, but have seen several Kerry ads. I don't supose that's too strange, given that this state is a democratic stronghold.

My overall impression thus far is that Kerry will probably carry the popular vote, but will probably still loose the election. Attack ads work. They have worked historically. I doubt either side will back off them at this juncture.

-Colly

I think it's a sad state of affairs that we have political ads at all. Political ads are just what they call themselves: "ads". The whole point is to bash the competing brand and play up your brand and the one who does it best is the one who lies the loudest. Every political ad I have ever seen has been laughable. The fact that the deciding swing voters most often vote on these "informative tv ads" is the reason why this isn't so much a democracy as a plutocracy sustained by stupidity.

The political process, from voting to ungerrymandering districts to the electoral college to campaigns to fundraising to the two party system, is long overdue for a major overhaul. Traditions need to be broken in order to get these smug assholes in Washington to stop fucking us with the ful knowledge that they won't pay for it.
 
Back
Top