Bush campaign accents the negative: Scholars say volume of attacks is unprecedented

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/

By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei

Updated: 11:17 p.m. ET May 30, 2004

It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates -- all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and "flip-flopped" on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.

"There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent."

Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."

In terms of the magnitude of the distortions, those who study political discourse say Bush's are no worse than those that have been done since, as Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar put it, "the beginning of time."

Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.

But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."

Attacks get early start

The attacks have started unusually early -- even considering the accelerated primary calendar -- in part because Bush was responding to a slew of attacks on his record during the Democratic primaries, in which the rivals criticized him more than one another. And because the Bush campaign has spent an unprecedented sum on advertising at this early stage of the campaign, "the average voter is getting a much more negative impression," said Ken Goldstein, who tracks political advertising at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions.

Sometimes the charges ring true. Last week, Kerry told NBC: "I'm for the Patriot Act, but I'm not for the Patriot Act the way they abuse the Constitution." That brought to mind Kerry's much-mocked contention in March on Iraq spending: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But often they distort Kerry's record and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce negative perceptions of him.

One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter when he was challenged on it.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.

Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

Stretching the truth

Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.

Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.

"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.

The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

On Tuesday, the Bush campaign held a conference call to discuss its new ad, which charged that Kerry was "pressured by fellow liberals" to oppose wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance in the USA Patriot Act. "Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists," the ad said.

Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. In the conference call, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was prodded to offer evidence that Kerry was pressured by liberals or that Kerry opposed wiretaps. He offered no direct evidence, saying only that Kerry objected to the Patriot Act after liberals did, and that "a common-sense reading indicates he intends to repeal those important tools."

Meanwhile, Kerry was greeted in Oregon and Washington state with television ads paid for by the Bush campaign that underscore what ad analysts call the negativity and misleading nature of many of the Bush TV spots. One titled "Doublespeak" pulls quotes from several major newspapers to argue that Kerry has waffled on major issues and has often said one thing and done another. The quotes, however, are often from editorials, sometimes from opinion pages hostile toward Kerry, such as that of the Wall Street Journal.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, as Kerry talked about rising gasoline prices, the Bush campaign recycled its charge that Kerry supports raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. This was done in a memo to reporters and through Bush surrogates such as Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.). The Bush-Cheney Web site also features a "Kerry Gas Tax Calculator," allowing users to learn "How much more would he cost you?"

In Thursday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Tracey Schmitt, regional spokeswoman for Bush-Cheney '04, echoed the point: "John Kerry helped block the bill in the Senate and is now inserting himself into the debate in a blatant display of political opportunism. Senator Kerry supported higher gas taxes at least 11 times, including a 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax," Schmitt said.

On Thursday, after Kerry delivered a major foreign policy address, the Bush campaign dispatched Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to make this statement to the Green Bay Press-Gazette in his home state: "John Kerry has a history of making proposals and casting votes that would decrease America's safety." Kerry was campaigning in Green Bay on Thursday and Friday.

It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war. But Cheney voted against many of those same weapons systems, and Kerry has voted for several defense increases, especially in recent years.

At Bush campaign headquarters on Thursday, Mehlman held a conference call with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and George Allen (R-Va.) to level similar charges. "For John Kerry, the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror are a political game of Twister," Mehlman said.

Mehlman also drew reporters' attention to a new feature on the Bush Web site, allowing visitors to "Track Kerry's Shifting Positions on Iraq." That feature joined a Web log that points out negative coverage of Kerry, a feature called "John Kerry: The Raw Deal," "The Kerry Line," "Kerry Flip Flop of the Day," and "Journeys with John," a Kerry itinerary allowing people to see why "John Kerry is wrong for your state."

On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry "led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security." While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed.

[chomerics]

Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.

"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.

So true.

[Fred Jones]

It is unfortunate that Kerry has thus far failed to take advantage of the situation.

[Larry]

When asked about the article, Administration officials, speaking off the record, said that the authors were known anti-american terrorist sympathisers, and made references to the "liberal media attack machine".

[Fred Jones]

When asked about the article, Administration officials, speaking off the record, said that the authors were known anti-american terrorist sympathisers, and made references to the "liberal media attack machine".

Nice

[aREDSKIN]

Geeze if anyone on the WP is anti-Bush it's certainly Milbank & VandeHei. Get a grip these are just "journalists" wraped up in thier own cocoon of self importance preaching the choir of leftist hatred, dogma via agitprop.

[chiefhogskin48]

Yeah, that Kerry campaign is really positive.

[webnarc]

Yeah, that Kerry campaign is really positive.

The whole "takes one to know one" thing. It doesn't matter what Bush does because Kerry's doing something similar. Does the lack of depth to that line of thinking concern anyone else?

[Thiebear]

I have no issues with the sides pointing out the obvious:

Kerry's side: War sucks, economy not going good enough.

No Wmd, Intelligence not good enough, coalition too small.

UN not helping enough.

Bush's side: Kerry flip flops will tax everything in sight.

Will go back to Terrorist as police action..

[Art]

Repealing "most" of the Bush tax cuts is something Kerry wants to do by repealing tax cuts on Americans making over $200,000. Most doesn't have to mean most people. It can mean most money and as we've been informed repeated, most of the money went to the people paying most of the taxes, which happen to be the higher income earning and taxpaying citizens among us.

I haven't seen the contents of the ad suggesting Kerry has suggested the war on terror isn't a war at all, but, we do know Kerry has stated we should return to law enforcement efforts instead of treating acts of terrorism as a military necessity in response. Certainly that can lend some credence to possible truth to the statement, though again, I don't know the context.

The problem with applying what is misleading and what isn't is that in part, almost everything outlined in this article stated by Bush is true. Obviously there are misleading portions to it by omission of frame or particular context. But, it's factually possible to make the statements. Meanwhile, the items outlined in the article to Kerry our outright falsehoods lacking in truth. We haven't gone it alone. You can't make that statement on any fringe portion of what we've done to say it can be true. We've always had a large coalition with us and the majority of the U.N. Security Council was in support. Therefore we've not gone it alone.

In any case, I think it's appropriate for both sides to aim attacks at political positions the other side has made in the past. I just don't know how much the advertising helps or hurts these guys because I have Tivo and haven't seen one ad .

[NavyDave]

Negativity??

Isnt that what the Washington post, NY Times, frisco chronicle, boston herald LA Times,CNN, MSNBC, Headline News,CBS, ABC and NBC have been doing since this past December?

Can you find one positive media release for the President from any of these outlets?

No

Then you hear the liberal media upset when free thinking people leave those sources for left wing agenda and go to one cable TV channel and a handful of newspapers that appear to be more pro american less morally corrupt.

I dont see why Kerry isnt higher in the polls.

Heck he was being coached by reporters on how to respond to some of their questions and still fouled that up.

I'll still say when it comes down to it look at who Osama bin laden, Alqaeda, islamic jihad, Gay marriage and abortionist liberals, France, Germany and Russia wants in office then vote opposite

[chomerics]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Negativity??

Isnt that what the Washington post, NY Times, frisco chronicle, boston herald LA Times,CNN, MSNBC, Headline News,CBS, ABC and NBC have been doing since this past December?

Can you find one positive media release for the President from any of these outlets?

No

If the President actually acted like a leader, you would see it.

After 9-11 how many of you were crying "the liberal media" mantra? I was behind the president 100%, right up until he decided to focus on Iraq instead of Afghanistan. It was his own blunders that turned me against him, not the media.

Then you hear the liberal media upset when free thinking people leave those sources for left wing agenda and go to one cable TV channel and a handful of newspapers that appear to be more pro american less morally corrupt.

I dont see why Kerry isnt higher in the polls.

Heck he was being coached by reporters on how to respond to some of their questions and still fouled that up.

I'll still say when it comes down to it look at who Osama bin laden, Alqaeda, islamic jihad, Gay marriage and abortionist liberals, France, Germany and Russia wants in office then vote opposite

Gee ND, some more wonderful insight from your homophobic view of the world.

Al Qaeda wants Bush to be re-elected. They couldn't have asked for a more inept leader at taking their orginization down. They lost a total of 2000 people, but the recruiting material we've given them is priceless. Bush for another four years is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants.

Remember, they wanted Saddam out too, why not let us remove Saddam, then they can go in and push thier islamic ideology on the rest of the Iraqis. . .

if you would just come out of the closet ND, the world would be a much happier place

[Thiebear]

chomerics: hey, you can read and update your info..

quoting my qoute:

(They lost a total of 2000 people)

but the recruiting material we've given them is priceless. Bush for another four years is exactly what Al-Qaeda wants)

Now throwing in there the part about Alqaeda wants BUSH????

lets go over that for a second of two:

Bush: Willing to round them all up no matter what country. Will threaten the leadership of any country. Has proven that he will chase down and turn over two countries already.. With Bush there is no place to hide. He is a Cowboy, He is stubborn.

Kerry: Give it back to the UN, be strong but not stubborn. Try and get more people to help. Treat it more like Law Enforcement.

I think that is what we call a "no-brainer" on what Alqaeda wants...

[fmorris]

Originally posted by Art

Repealing "most" of the Bush tax cuts is something Kerry wants to do by repealing tax cuts on Americans making over $200,000. Most doesn't have to mean most people. It can mean most money and as we've been informed repeated, most of the money went to the people paying most of the taxes, which happen to be the higher income earning and taxpaying citizens among us.

**Obviously, due to ratio, more money will come from these wealthy elite and corporations. As well it should, as the top one percent control 38 percent of the money in this country, where else would it come from?

The problem with applying what is misleading and what isn't is that in part, almost everything outlined in this article stated by Bush is true. Obviously there are misleading portions to it by omission of frame or particular context. But, it's factually possible to make the statements. Meanwhile, the items outlined in the article to Kerry our outright falsehoods lacking in truth. We haven't gone it alone. You can't make that statement on any fringe portion of what we've done to say it can be true. We've always had a large coalition with us and the majority of the U.N. Security Council was in support. Therefore we've not gone it alone.

**So by your definition, 'almost everything' can be (appropriatly) bent, (or spun in this case)to take on a representation of truth, under the umbrella of 'factual truth?' For the sake of argument we'll call this a political correct lie, and crit Kerry for throwing em out there without the appropriate dressing...ummm ok.

In any case, I think it's appropriate for both sides to aim attacks at political positions the other side has made in the past. I just don't know how much the advertising helps or hurts these guys because I have Tivo and haven't seen one ad .

Yes, political deception, and manipulation of the issues is always a good thing:doh1: As we see here it isnt a matter of simply stating political positions from the past, but smashing it into a bloody mass that will fit thier own agenda. And that goes for both sides.

[Larry]

Actually, FWIW, I haven't seen one Kerry ad that appeared negative to me. (Or even mentioned Bush.)

The only one I've seen has a bunch of people (including his wife) saying what a great guy he is.

Granted, I don't think that's because Kerry is morally superior to Bush. It's more a case of Kerry doesn't need to tell people about Bush's record, because they all know it.

Bush's problem is that people are dissatisfied with his job, so he needs to tell people that "the other guy's worse than I am".

Kerry's problem is that, while people are leaving Bush, they aren't flocking to him, so he needs to convince people that he's not a monster.

I don't think Kerry's avoiding negative ads because he's too squeeky clean to use them. He's simply in a position where they won't help him.

[Destino]

Art supports dishonesty in politics.

The above statement is factually possible.

[Art]

Originally posted by fmorris

**Obviously, due to ratio, more money will come from these wealthy elite and corporations. As well it should, as the top one percent control 38 percent of the money in this country, where else would it come from?

Fair enough. So, again, the point is the article made the statement that what Bush is saying is untrue. You confirm what Bush is saying is, in fact, true. I completely agree with you. People who pay taxes are the ones who are going to get a tax cut, or who are going to be taxed when taxes increase. Obviously. Which is why it's so odd to see the article here say a truthful statement is not a truthful statement.

**So by your definition, 'almost everything' can be (appropriatly) bent, (or spun in this case)to take on a representation of truth, under the umbrella of 'factual truth?' For the sake of argument we'll call this a political correct lie, and crit Kerry for throwing em out there without the appropriate dressing...ummm ok.

My point is simple. If Kerry didn't vote to support the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq, you can say Kerry doesn't support the troops and not be misleading, even if you aren't necessarily saying the whole story. Understand, I wouldn't have voted for the $87 billion either. Yet, I support the troops. The bottom line is, I'd have made Iraqi oil pay for it or I wouldn't have supported it. Or, more appropriately, I'd have supported the amendment that wanted the money designated to rebuild Iraq to be paid for by Iraq and we would pay for our troops.

If I were to take this stance, you could fairly say I didn't support the troops and I'd have to explain why I didn't. I couldn't just say, "Nuh, uh, I do to." If Bush says Kerry doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war, and Kerry had previously stated he wants to prosecute acts of terrorism with the judicial system and as police action rather than military action, you can conceivable say he doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war since he said he views it as a police action.

The fact that Kerry has generally taken a position for and against most issues allows you to say pretty much what you want about his political positions without being false or dishonest, though you certainly might not be complete. From what this article states in the opening paragraphs, what Bush has said can be directly taken from a Kerry position. What the article says Kerry states contains no actual truth. There's a difference.

Yes, political deception, and manipulation of the issues is always a good thing:doh1: As we see here it isnt a matter of simply stating political positions from the past, but smashing it into a bloody mass that will fit thier own agenda. And that goes for both sides.

Again, I have no problem with focusing very narrowly on particular points that damage the opposition in a political campaign. I think that's beneficial to the process and forces issues to be further expanded on by the candidates.

[fmorris]

Originally posted by Art

Fair enough. So, again, the point is the article made the statement that what Bush is saying is untrue. You confirm what Bush is saying is, in fact, true. I completely agree with you. People who pay taxes are the ones who are going to get a tax cut, or who are going to be taxed when taxes increase. Obviously. Which is why it's so odd to see the article here say a truthful statement is not a truthful statement.

**What the article fails to do is properly demonstrate the failure of the Bush campain to specify who these tax cuts (or increases)are going to grotesquely favor. A clever deception, from the Bush campain to manipulate the unelightened self interest of the voter, and make Kerry look bad in the process. Maybe your right, and I'm not so stubborn to admit that it is a factual truth. But it still smells awful.

My point is simple. If Kerry didn't vote to support the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq, you can say Kerry doesn't support the troops and not be misleading, even if you aren't necessarily saying the whole story. Understand, I wouldn't have voted for the $87 billion either. Yet, I support the troops. The bottom line is, I'd have made Iraqi oil pay for it or I wouldn't have supported it. Or, more appropriately, I'd have supported the amendment that wanted the money designated to rebuild Iraq to be paid for by Iraq and we would pay for our troops.

If I were to take this stance, you could fairly say I didn't support the troops and I'd have to explain why I didn't. I couldn't just say, "Nuh, uh, I do to." If Bush says Kerry doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war, and Kerry had previously stated he wants to prosecute acts of terrorism with the judicial system and as police action rather than military action, you can conceivable say he doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war since he said he views it as a police action.

**I understand your point completly. Not getting the whole story is exactly what they're using to wage this campain. To use the complexity of the issues to mislead, to show the other party as indecisive at best, ignorant at worse, and to play the patriot card for all it's worth. What's obvious is that this negative campaining is intended to to divert the issues of they're own shortcomings, and bank on the voting public to be uneducated on the details. My guess is it'll work splendidly.

The fact that Kerry has generally taken a position for and against most issues allows you to say pretty much what you want about his political positions without being false or dishonest, though you certainly might not be complete. From what this article states in the opening paragraphs, what Bush has said can be directly taken from a Kerry position. What the article says Kerry states contains no actual truth. There's a difference.

Again, I have no problem with focusing very narrowly on particular points that damage the opposition in a political campaign. I think that's beneficial to the process and forces issues to be further expanded on by the candidates.

**I dunno, a lie by any other color. Here again it's easy to say that someone voted against a tax cut for the people, when they were really trying to save working class programs. Or that someone voted for a gas hike, but not mention that it was ten years ago. I concede to you that at this point atleast, they are guilty of deception, more so than out and out lies. Atleast by your definition.

But I do agree completely with your last comment. The worse case senerio is that we learn a little something about the processess. All the best!

[Art]

Fmorris,

I think we are on different sides of the political fence, but, we're largely in agreement in this conversation. The fact is the reason it is hard to get elected President when you've been a sitting Senator is because you have a voting record and public statements that bind you to certain issues that are hard to overcome if your opponent decides to use them.

The gas tax thing, for example. Kerry supported a gas tax. It's not required that Bush explain when. If it's KNOWN that Kerry has subsequently come out and stated he does NOT support a gas tax under any circumstances, then, what Bush would have said is a lie. But as Kerry has not made a public pronouncement that he no longer favors a gas tax under any circumstances, the fact is, saying he favors a tax on gas is true and it's Kerry's responsibility to say, "No, I no longer do." Bush doesn't have to answer the various positions Kerry has taken as a public servant.

Kerry does. It's not an attack to make your opponent explain where he stands on issues now. For example. Take the gas tax thing again. What happens if Kerry gets into the White House and pushes to have a gas tax though he hasn't done so for 10 years. Would that issue have moved various voters away from him if they'd known?

By raising the issue, Bush forces Kerry to say he will not support a gas tax, or to at least position himself on it so people can hold him to it. I think this is good when you have political campaigns force each other to answer their beliefs.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art

My point is simple. If Kerry didn't vote to support the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq, you can say Kerry doesn't support the troops and not be misleading, even if you aren't necessarily saying the whole story. Understand, I wouldn't have voted for the $87 billion either. Yet, I support the troops. The bottom line is, I'd have made Iraqi oil pay for it or I wouldn't have supported it. Or, more appropriately, I'd have supported the amendment that wanted the money designated to rebuild Iraq to be paid for by Iraq and we would pay for our troops.

If I were to take this stance, you could fairly say I didn't support the troops and I'd have to explain why I didn't. I couldn't just say, "Nuh, uh, I do to." If Bush says Kerry doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war, and Kerry had previously stated he wants to prosecute acts of terrorism with the judicial system and as police action rather than military action, you can conceivable say he doesn't view the war on terrorism as a war since he said he views it as a police action.

To pick just one phrase out of that, let's try:

If Kerry didn't vote to support the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq, you can say Kerry doesn't support the troops and not be misleading, even if you aren't necessarily saying the whole story.

I disagree with your judgement. To make the statement "Kerry doesn't support the troops" based simply on the fact that he voted against a spending bill is misleading. It is, in fact, the specific type of declaration that's been the hallmark of politice for a few decades: A statement which has just enough substance behind it so that it can't be outright proven false in a single sentance, but which has been deliberatly chosen to try to make people think it was a statement of fact.

And, just as the purpose of communication is to deliver information to a recipient, the purpose of a lie is to deliver false information to a recipient.

The statement "Kerry doesn't support the troops" is a statement of fact, and what the Bush campaign is trying to do is to take a fact (he voted against a spending bill, after the bill had been modified to cover several subjects), draw a supposition from that fact (he voted against it because he doesn't want our troops to have weapons), then present the supposition as fact.

It's just like the administration being very carefull, for over a year, to never once say "Saddam has WMDs ready to use against the US", or to say "Saddam was involved with 9/11", but to also make certain that, whenever anyone asks why we're going out of our way to pick a fight with another country, to make certain the answer mentions WMDs or 9/11.

(Or, to pick another example from that article, to say:

Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

Then this is what they consider to be one of his campaign's more factual statements?!?!?

[gbear]

The best part of the last statement is when those numbers were looked at in an editorial I've posted on here many times. It was 280 some, but hey if you're making hte numbers up, why not 350?

It's the same charge used against Clinton. For Example, Clinton "raised taxes" when he wanted to let the race tracks stay open for another day. Of course that brings in tax revenue, so he "raised taxes." THe same article talked about how per year, using the same methodology, Bush has raised taxes more!

Of course on this board, we constantly hear about how lowering taxes raises tax revenue (still waiting for updated numbers to bear this out as most recent numbers do not). So Bush raises taxes!

The whole "raises taxes" and the numbers used to support this claim are a farse. Shame on anybody who blindly believes.

[aREDSKIN]

Bush responds to the DNC talking points that Milbank and Vanderwhipple used:

From:

http://georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=2716

The Washington Post's Misstatement 1 ($900 Billion In Taxes)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On "Raise Taxes By At Least $900 Billion." "On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And $900 Billion In Taxes

Kerry Promised First 100 Days Proposal To Congress Would Be Health Care Plan. "John Kerry's first major proposal to Congress will be a realistic plan that stops spiraling healthcare costs, covers every child in America, and makes it possible for every American to get the same health care as any Member of Congress." (John Kerry's "100 Days To Change America," http://www.johnkerry.com/

issues/100days/index.html#plan)

Kerry Promises: "In My First Hundred Days In The White House, I Will Roll Back George Bush's Tax Cut For The Wealthiest So That We Can Invest In Education And Health Care." (John Kerry, "Kick off new year by making right choice for President," The Union Leader [Manchester NH], 1/1/04)

Kerry's Health Care Plan Was Originally Scored At $895 Billion Over 10 Years By Former Clinton Appointee Kenneth Thorpe. According to Kenneth Thorpe, a health care economics professor at Emory University and former Clinton administration official: "Federal costs under the Kerry plans would be $895 billion over ten years to extend insurance to 26.7 million uninsured [of 43.6 million total uninsured]. This includes approximately $230 billion in federal spending for the reinsurance pool that targets those with health insurance and $665 billion for programs targeting the uninsured." (Kenneth E. Thorpe, "An Overview And Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates' Health Care Reform Proposals," 9/7/03; "Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2002," U.S. Census Bureau, 9/03)

At The Time, Kerry Accepted Thorpe's $900 Billion Estimate When Asked. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "f you look at $75 billion a year, the president has just passed a tax cut, 54 percent of which went to 1 percent of Americans, which was about $352 billion. … That's the choice of this race." PBS' MARGARET WARNER: "But your plan totaled, as scored by an independent authority, $900 billion over ten years." KERRY: "Yes." (PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," 7/2/03)

Despite His Rhetoric, No Possible Way Kerry Could Pay For His Health Care Proposal By Only Raising Taxes On People Making More Than $200,000. If Kerry repealed the Bush tax cuts solely for those making $200,000 or more, it would only result in $250 billion over 10 years. ("Kerry: 'Worst Jobs Record' Since Hoover," The Washington Post, 7/11/03; David Wessel, Op-Ed, "View From The Right: Tax Increases Ahead," The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/04)

And Kerry Promised To Cut, Not Increase, The Deficit: "I'm Going To Cut The Deficit In Half In The First Four Years." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Black Caucus/Fox News Channel Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Detroit, MI, 10/26/03)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 2 (PATRIOT Act Wiretaps)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On The PATRIOT Act. "On Tuesday, the Bush campaign held a conference call to discuss its new ad, which charged that Kerry was 'pressured by fellow liberals' to oppose wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance in the USA Patriot Act. 'Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists,' the ad said. Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. In the conference call, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was prodded to offer evidence that Kerry was pressured by liberals or that Kerry opposed wiretaps. He offered no direct evidence, saying only that Kerry objected to the Patriot Act after liberals did, and that 'a common-sense reading indicates he intends to repeal those important tools.'" (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And The PATRIOT Act

Kerry Voted For The PATRIOT Act. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

On Senate Floor, Kerry "Pleased" With The PATRIOT Act. "I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance component. It has been a source of considerable concern for people, and I think the sunset provision provides Congress a chance to come back and measure the record appropriately, and that is appropriate." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/25/01, p. S11027)

Kerry Said Legislation Would Help Stop Development Of Terrorist Organizations. "Passage of this legislation is going to make it a lot more difficult for new terrorist organizations to develop." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/25/01, p. S11027)

The ACLU Quickly Focused On The PATRIOT Act And Encouraged Repealing Portions Of The Law. "Many of the ACLU's concerns have focused on the USA PATRIOT Act, which Congress overwhelmingly approved shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. The measure expanded law enforcement's authority to conduct wiretaps, seize voice mail messages, probe bank records, explore electronic databases and obtain nationwide warrants. ... At the grass-roots level, the organization will encourage people to ask their representatives to repeal portions of the PATRIOT Act." (Emily Bazar, "ACLU Campaign To Tackle Terror Laws," Sacramento Bee, 10/17/02)

Early In His Bid For President, Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Criticized The PATRIOT Act. DEAN: "First of all, I would remove the parts of the PATRIOT Act that are clearly unconstitutional. It can't be constitutional to hold an American citizen without access to a lawyer. Secondly, it can't be constitutional for the FBI to be able to go through your files at the library or the local video store, to see what you've taken out in the last week, without a warrant." (Truthout Website, "TO Interview With Howard Dean," http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml, Accessed 5/22/03)

Later, Running For President, Candidate Kerry Attacked The PATRIOT Act For Creating A "Blind Spot In The American Justice System." "If you are sensitive to and care about civil liberties, you can make provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that there is today under the PATRIOT Act." (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR's "Morning Edition," 8/18/03)

Kerry Called For Replacing The PATRIOT Act With A New Law. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the PATRIOT Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Kerry Would Seek To Limit Sneak And Peek And Place "Reasonable Safeguards" On Wiretap And Library Searches. Kerry's outline to "End The Era Of John Ashcroft" includes: "Strengthen terrorism laws that work, including sharing information with local law enforcement. Stop unreasonable sneak and peek searches, and ensure that there are reasonable safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps and the seizing of library and business records. Assuring that terrorism laws are used to combat terrorism and not in ordinary criminal cases, such as to send the FBI to churches or anti-war demonstrations or to help a political cause. Assuring government is transparent and information is available so that Congress and the public can hold the Justice Department accountable." (John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/civil_liberties.html, Accessed 2/6/04)

The PATRIOT Act Allows Law Enforcement To Use "Roving Wiretaps" As Already Allowed In Drug And Racketeering Cases. "Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use [roving wiretaps] in national security investigations to track terrorists." (Justice Department PATRIOT Act Website, www.lifeandliberty.gov, Accessed 8/20/03)

Kerry Has Criticized Wiretap Authority Under The PATRIOT Act. "Under the authorities of the Patriot Act, the Justice Department can use roving wiretaps without adequate checks or safeguards. This roving wiretap authority threatens personal privacy and increases the likelihood that the conversations of innocent people wholly unrelated to the intelligence target will be intercepted." (John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/civil_liberties.html, Accessed 2/6/04)

The PATRIOT Act Allows Law Enforcement To Obtain Same The Type Of Records Available Through Grand Jury Subpoenas. "Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. ... Under the PATRIOT Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas." (Justice Department PATRIOT Act Website, www.lifeandliberty.gov, Accessed 5/21/04)

The PATRIOT Act Allows Law Enforcement To Conduct Investigations Without Tipping Off Terrorists. "[F]ederal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. ... These delayed notification search warrants have been used for decades, have proven crucial in drug and organized crime cases, and have been upheld by courts as fully constitutional." (18 U.S.C. § 2705; Justice Department PATRIOT Act Website, www.lifeandliberty.gov, Accessed 8/20/03)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Noted During Debate On The PATRIOT Act, "The FBI Could Get A Wiretap To Investigate The Mafia, But They Could Not Get One To Investigate Terrorists. To Put It Bluntly, That Was Crazy! What's Good For The Mob Should Be Good For Terrorists." (Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, 10/25/01, p. S11048)

After 9/11, Kerry Even Voiced Support For Tougher Surveillance, Including Expanding Wiretap Coverage. MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Let's talk about Ashcroft, the attorney general. Conservative fellow, wants more wiretap authority. What do you make of that? Are you for that kind of approach, tougher surveillance?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I am for tougher surveillance. I think you've got to do it, obviously, in keeping with the liberties of our country. But you can do these things, many of them. For instance, it's absolutely outdated to have a wiretap linked only to a telephone number in a modern age where you throw one away and use another 10 minutes later. So I think it's absolutely legitimate to track the wiretap to a specific individual. There are other kinds of things that we absolutely must do in order to modernize." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 9/24/01)

Two Question And Answers From The May 25, 2004 Bush/Cheney 2004 Conference Call To Preview PATRIOT Act Ad:

Mark Memmott, USA Today Question: Ken, on their conference call this morning, Eric Holder and Admiral Crowe, based on this ad, accused the Bush-Cheney Campaign of playing politics with this issue, and said the ad "distorts the Senator's position that what he's calling for is a thoughtful reexamination of the Act." What's your response to their allegation?

Ken Mehlman Answer: Well, my response is twofold. First of all, talking about your principal position on an issue is not the same as having no principles on the issues and changing your position for political gain. But what our ad points out is, in Senator Kerry's own words, the following: On Hardball, and this is in our materials, 9/24/01, he stated: "It's absolutely outdated to have a wiretap linked only to a telephone number in a modern age where you throw one away and use another 10 minutes later. So I think it's absolutely legitimate to track the wiretap to a specific individual." Then, later on his website said, critically: "The Justice Department can use roving wiretaps without adequate checks or safeguards. This roving wiretap authority threatens personal privacy." So our ad is pointing out the change in John Kerry's position as reflected in his own words about a critical tool in the war in terror. An ad talking about an issue is not the same as changing your position for political gain, which is what our reflects.

Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post, Question: Thank you. Ken, the language of the ad says, talking about wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillances, "Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists." But what it says on Kerry's website, and some of which you cited in your own email, is that he would require more evidence, he would set a higher bar, various checks and balances. Is that the same as repeal the use of these tools?

Ken Mehlman Answer: I would also call your attention, in addition to his website, and it's in our "Ad Fact Background," his speech on 12/01/03 at the Iowa State University, where he said: "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act." And has in other occasions also, and it's reflected in our materials, spoken this way. So he has said we need to replace the Patriot Act, and his website has called for these provisions being problematic which, taken together, indicate – I think a common sense reading indicate that in fact he intends to repeal these important tools.

The Washington Post's Misstatement 3 (The 50 Cent Gas Tax)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Gas Tax. "Kerry...has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years... On Tuesday and Wednesday, as Kerry talked about rising gasoline prices, the Bush campaign recycled its charge that Kerry supports raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. This was done in a memo to reporters and through Bush surrogates such as Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.). The Bush-Cheney Web site also features a 'Kerry Gas Tax Calculator," allowing users to learn "How much more would he cost you?'" (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And The 50 Cent Gas Tax And Higher Gas Taxes

Kerry Supported Higher Gas Taxes At Least 11 Times As Senator

NUMBERS ONE AND TWO: Voted Twice For Clinton/Gore Btu Tax, Increasing Gas Prices 7.5 Cents Per Gallon. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #40: Rejected 46-53: R 43-0; D 3-53, 3/18/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #53: Motion Agreed To 55-44: R 0-43; D 55-1, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Yea; Patrick Burns, "Activist Handbook 2000: Gasoline Tax," Citizens For A Sound Economy, 7/20/00)

NUMBERS THREE AND FOUR: 1993 Clinton/Kerry Tax Plan Increased Gas Taxes. The 1993 Budget Resolution conference report included a 4.3 cents-per-gallon increase in the gas tax. The budget resolution also contained a 2.5 cents-per-gallon extension of the current gas tax. (H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #190: Passed 50-49: R 0-43; D 49-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 6/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2264, CQ Vote #247: Adopted 51-50: R 0-44; D 50-6, With Vice President Al Gore Casting The Tie-Breaking Vote, 8/6/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

NUMBER FIVE: Voted To Kill An Amendment That Would Have Eliminated Gas Tax Increase From Budget Resolution. (H.R. 1134, CQ Vote #167: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 0-43; D 50-5, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

NUMBERS SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE: Voted At Least Four Times Against Repealing Clinton 4.3-Cent Increase In Gas Tax. In 1996, the Senate Republican Policy Committee estimated the 1993 increase in the gas tax cost consumers $5 billion per year. (H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #111: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 52-1; D 0-43, 5/9/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2937, CQ Vote #112: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 53-0; D 1-43, 5/14/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1173, CQ Vote #26: Motion Rejected 18-80: R 16-37; D 2-43, 3/11/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2285, CQ Vote #80: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, 4/11/00, Kerry Voted Nay; Senate Republican Policy Committee, "White House Unjust Firings/Gas Tax, Minimum Wage, Team Act," 5/9/96)

NUMBER TEN (KERRY 50 CENT GAS TAX): 1994: Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax In Boston Globe Interview. "Kerry said [the Concord Coalition's scorecard] method did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers' efforts to cut the deficit. 'It doesn't reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,' Kerry said." (Jill Zuckman, "Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers," The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Position "Unpopular." "[sen. John] Kerry said he proposed nearly $50 billion in cuts last year and backed a politically unpopular 50 cents per gallon gas tax." (Andrew Miga, "Criticism By Tsongas Irks Ted K, Kerry," Boston Herald, 3/2/94)

Gas Tax Measure Introduced By Sen. Chuck Robb (D-VA). Robb's 1993 legislation would have imposed an "additional tax on motor fuels" by a "50-cent increase over the next 5 calendar years," which is accomplished "10 cents a gallon in each calendar year." The bill had no co-sponsors, and never made it to a floor vote. (S. 1068, Introduced 5/28/93)

"At The Time" Kerry Said It Looked Like A Good Idea. "Kerry conceded that a 50-cent gas-tax hike 'appeared to be a good idea at the time' when it was proposed in 1992 to help reduce the federal deficit. 'But when you looked at how it was going to impact drivers in the Midwest, truck drivers across the country, and perhaps have a negative drag on the economy, we decided it was not a smart idea,' said Kerry, adding that he doesn't favor the increase today and never voted for it." (Shelley Murphy, "Weld, Kerry Take Debate On Road," The Boston Globe, 4/10/96)

NUMBER ELEVEN: In 2000, Kerry Voted Against Suspending The 18.4 Cent Gas Tax For 150 Days. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #183: Motion Rejected 40-59: R 40-15; D 0-44, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 4 (NCLB Flip Flop)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry And NCLB. "On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.... Kerry...continues to support the education changes [NCLB], albeit with modifications." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And The Kerry NCLB Flip Flop

Sen. John Kerry Voted For NCLB. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Agreed To 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6, I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 2001 Senate Speech, Kerry Called NCLB "Groundbreaking Legislation That Enhances ... Commitment To Our Nation's Public Education System." "It gives me great pleasure to come to the Senate floor today to talk about, and to lend my support to, the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. This is groundbreaking legislation that enhances the Federal Government's commitment to our Nation's public education system, dramatically reconfigures the federal role in public education, and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system. This bill represents a true coming together of Republicans and Democrats, and both sides made important compromises in order to arrive at this point." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 12/18/01, p. S 13362)

Kerry Said To Leave No Child Behind, America Should "Leave One President Left Behind." "Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry blasted President Bush's education policies yesterday to a lively crowd of educators, including some of his South Shore constituents. 'The path to "no child left behind,"' Kerry said, referring to the slogan for President Bush's education agenda, 'is to leave one president left behind.'" (Matt Leon, "Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators," The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Kerry Attacks NCLB's Testing Standards And The Accountability It Provides Parents. "We must recognize that no single prescription or solution will ensure success in every school and classroom. John Kerry will make sure that we do not turn our schools into test-prep institutions – that is not right for our teachers and it's not right for our children. Tests should be used to diagnose problems so we can fix them. They should not be used to punish our schools, our teachers, or our students. The quality of our public schools should not be determined by a 'one-size-fits-all' testing plan." (John Kerry For President, "Strengthening America's Schools For The 21st Century," www.johnkerry.com/issues/education, accessed 5/8/04)

Kerry Accused President Bush Of Making American Education "Weaker." George Bush, who speaks of strength, has made America weaker – weaker economically, weaker in education, and weaker in health care." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks On February 3rd Primary Election Night, 2/3/04)

Kerry Stands Against Holding Schools Accountable To Make Progress And Requiring Highly Qualified Teachers In Classrooms. "[T]his administration is doing to the school system of America what it did to school systems of Houston and in Texas. They're faking it. And they're punitive to teachers. They're disrespectful to teachers. ... We need to change the No Child Left Behind standard, so no teacher who is certified ... with 15 years of service, is not recognized for it. We need to change, so no school is forced into failure ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 1/4/04)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 5 (Abu Ghraib Prison)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Abu Ghraib Prison. "One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is 'playing politics' with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are 'universally responsible' for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And Abu Ghraib Prison

Kerry Politicized The Abu Ghraib Incident And Blamed Prisoner Abuse On The President. "Kerry, 60, also said prisoner abuse in Iraq by U.S. troops stemmed from an 'arrogance' of policy under Bush. 'It's not just a few privates and corporals, sergeants,' Kerry told a fund-raising event in Louisville, Kentucky. 'This is something that comes out of attitude about the rights of prisoners of war. It is an attitude that comes out of how we view the prisoners. It is an attitude that comes out of an overall arrogance and policy.'" (Holly Rosenkrantz, "U.S. to Pursue Those Who Beheaded Hostage, Aide Says," Bloomberg, 5/11/04)

Kerry Exploited Prisoner Abuse For Fundraising. "In her e-mail yesterday, Ms. Cahill thanked supporters for their 'amazing' response to her Friday e-mail in which she called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation and asked for campaign contributions. Both e-mails included links for signing a petition calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's removal and for raising campaign money. The 'Donate now!' icon leads to a donation form allowing supporters to use a credit card to contribute online." (Charles Hurt, "Kerry accused of exploiting scandal," The Washington Times, 5/11/04)

Kerry Campaign E-Mail: In a fundraising e-mail, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill wrote, "Over the past week we have all been shocked by the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But we have also been appalled at the slow and inept response by President Bush, which has further undermined America's credibility in the world and created new dangers for Americans in Iraq. George Bush must fire Donald Rumsfeld. ... The events of the last week are a stark reminder of the stakes in this Presidential election. ... Show George Bush and show the media that you support John Kerry's stand: Donald Rumsfeld MUST resign immediately." The e-mail ends with the statement: "Keep the ball rolling: Donate Now!" (John Kerry For President, Fundraising E-Mail, 5/7/04)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 6 (Intelligence Cuts)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry Intelligence Cuts. "In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would 'gut the intelligence services.' Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And Intelligence Cuts

Proposed Immediate $1 Billion Cut And Five Year Freeze In Spending Level

In 1994, Kerry Proposed Amendment To Gut Intelligence Budget By $6 Billion Across The Board. The amendment cut $1 billion from FY 1994 and $5 billion for FY 1995 through 1998. 75 Senators, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) voted against Kerry's amendment. (Amdt. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37; D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Kennedy Voted Nay)

When He First Introduced Proposal, Kerry Said, "The Madness Must End. And To End It, We Each Must Be Willing To Vote To Eliminate Programs That We Know Are Not In The National Interest." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/94, p. S807)

Kerry's Own Democrat Colleagues Warned Him Proposal Was Dangerous

Then-Senate Intel Chair Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) Said Previous Cuts Were "As Deep As The Intelligence Community Can Withstand," And Kerry's Proposal Ignored Terrorism, Imperiled National Security. "[L]ast year's intelligence cut was as deep as the intelligence community can withstand during its post-cold-war transition. ... We no longer seem immune from acts of terrorism in the United States and the scourge of narcotics has hardly abated. ... It makes no sense for us to close our eyes and ears to developments around the world ..." (Sen. Dennis DeConcini, Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360)

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Warned Kerry's Cut "Would Severely Hamper" Intel Efforts And Ignored Threats Of North Korean Nukes And Terrorism. "[T]he intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community's ability to provide decision makers and policymakers with information on matters of vital concern to this country. ... These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea ... as well as terrorist threats against American citizens and property." (Sen. Daniel Inouye, Congressional Record, 2/10/94, pp. S1330-S1332)

In 1995, Proposed Across The Board Intelligence Cut Of $1.5 Billion

Kerry's Proposed Bill Cut Intelligence Across The Board. Kerry's bill read, in its entirety, "Reduce the intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." The bill had no co-sponsors and never came to vote on the Senate floor. (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95, Never Came To Vote)

Kerry Said His Proposal Cut "Programs Which I Consider To Be Pointless, Wasteful, Antiquated, Or Just Plain Silly." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/29/95, p. S14741)

In 2004, Proposes To Revise The Record

Apparently Kerry Was Only Slowing Rate Of Growth? "Bush reached back nine years to a bill introduced by Kerry to slow the rate of spending on intelligence gathering ..." (Mike Allen, "Bush, Cheney Attack Kerry As Indecisive," The Washington Post, 3/9/04)

Kerry's 1995 Bill Explicitly Called For Cut Of "$300 Million In Each Of Fiscal Years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, And 2000." (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

Kerry's 1995 Bill Would Have Made Real Cuts To Intelligence Budget. For example, if this bill had passed and become law, the FY1998 budget would have been $26.4 billion, instead of $26.8 billion. This is $200 million less than FY1997, which was $26.6. billion. (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By The Director Of Central Intelligence Regarding The Disclosure Of The Aggregate Intelligence Budget For Fiscal Year 1998," Press Release, 3/20/98)

Only A Targeted Cut? Kerry's Campaign Is Claiming S. 1290 Was Meant To Take Money Away From National Reconnaissance Office, Which Had Been Previously Over Funded. (Mike Allen, "Bush, Cheney Attack Kerry As Indecisive," The Washington Post, 3/9/04; Maura Reynolds and Matea Gold, "Bush Blasts Kerry On Swing Through Texas," Los Angeles Times, 3/9/04; Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, "Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position On Intelligence Budget," The Washington Post, 3/12/04)

S. 1290 Doesn't Mention National Reconnaissance Office. Kerry's cut was across the board. The entire text relevant to Intelligence funding in the bill reads: "Reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

No Evidence To Support Campaign Claim. "Kerry campaign officials said yesterday that the $1.5 billion in cuts he proposed were meant to take back the $1 billion to $1.7 billion the NRO had salted away – but the legislation and Kerry's floor statement, inserted in the Congressional Record that day, did not specify the reason for the proposed cuts." (Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, "Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position On Intelligence Budget," The Washington Post, 3/12/04)

Kerry Claims His Bill Cut NRO Funding And Was Similar To Amendment Proposed By Senators Specter, Kerrey And Coats, But The Two Bills Had Nothing In Common! While Kerry's Bill Made Across The Board Cuts, Senator Specter's Amendment Specifically Addressed NRO, Stating: "The total amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount by which appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 are reduced to reflect the availability of funds appropriated prior to fiscal year 1996 that have accumulated in the carry forward accounts for that Office." (John Kerry For President, "Statement From Kerry Spokesperson On Bush Attacks On Kerry Record On Intelligence," Press Release, 3/8/04; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95; S. Amdt. 2881, Introduced 9/29/95, Agreed To In Senate By Voice Vote 9/29/03)

The Washington Post Has Miscalculated Kerry's Intel Cuts Before

The Pincus/Milbank March 2004 Article: The 1% Calculation Ignores Other Kerry Proposals. "But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut – about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years – would have 'gutted' intelligence." (Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, "Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position On Intelligence Budget," The Washington Post, 3/12/04)

If You Total All Of Kerry's Proposed Cuts That Would Have Been In Effect For That Fiscal Year, 1996, They Total At Least 5% Of Intelligence Budget. (S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D-AZ], Congressional Record, 2/10/94, p. S1360; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95; U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By The Director Of Central Intelligence Regarding The Disclosure Of The Aggregate Intelligence Budget For Fiscal Year 1998," Press Release, 3/20/98; "Intelligence Funding Remains Intact," CQ Almanac, 1996, p. 9-19)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 7 (350 Times For Higher Taxes)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry's Support For Higher Taxes 350 Times. "Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry 'has voted some 350 times for higher taxes' includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And 350 Times For Higher Taxes

Sen. John Kerry Has Voted For Higher Taxes 350 Times. This number includes votes for tax increases, but also includes many other votes against American taxpayers.

Sen. Kerry's 350 Votes For Higher Taxes Can Be Broken Down Into Five Categories:

Votes for raising taxes/outright tax increases;

Votes against tax cuts;

Votes to reduce the size of a proposed tax cut;

Votes against repealing previously enacted tax increases (i.e. votes against repealing certain provisions of the 1993 Clinton tax increase);

Votes for Democrat "tax cut" substitutes, which would have provided billions less in tax relief to American families.

A Complete List Of Sen. Kerry's Votes For Higher Taxes Is Available.

The Washington Post's Misstatement 8 (The War On Terror)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry's Description Of The War On Terror. "The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. 'Senator Kerry,' Cheney said, 'has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation.' But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase 'war on terror.' When he said 'I don't want to use that terminology,' he was discussing the 'economic transformation' of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And The War On Terror

Kerry Balked At Calling War On Terror An Actual War. "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future. And that future's coming at us like it or not, in the context of terror, and in the context of failed states, and dysfunctional economies, and all that goes with that." (The New York Times Website, "In His Words: John Kerry," www.nytimes.com, 3/6/04)

Kerry Reaffirms View That War On Terror Is "Primarily" Law Enforcement Operation. ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "But you did say in South Carolina that the war on terror is primarily a law enforcement and intelligence operation." SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Well, primarily means primarily. It is, primarily. If you don't know who they are, where they are, and what they're planning, you can't go get them before they get you. And that's exactly what we need to do. Obviously, our intelligence failed in Iraq. I believe that we could have done a better job at Tora Bora in Afghanistan. I think that intelligence is critical, George, to knowing sort of -- what your target it. Once you know that your target is, I'm prepared to use any combination of military forces necessary to take them out and protect the United States of America. But I know this from experience. If you don't know accurately, so where are you going and who's planning to do what to you and you don't do it at the earliest possible moment, i.e., where they're plotting it over there rather than here, we're not going to protect America adequately." (ABC's "This Week," 2/22/04)

Kerry Said War On Terror Is "Basically A Manhunt." "Kerry was asked about Bush's weekend appearance on 'Meet the Press' when he called himself a 'war president.' The senator, who watched the session, remarked: 'The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It's a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they're trying to market to America.' Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. 'It's basically a manhunt,' he said. 'You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they're planning, and you gotta be able to go get 'em before they get us.'" (Katherine M. Skiba, "Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation." (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 9 (Department Of Homeland Security)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry's Opposition To The Department Of Homeland Security. "On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry 'led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security.' While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And The Department Of Homeland Security

Kerry Helped Lead The Fight Against President Bush's Department Of Homeland Security, Voting Against It Six Times. (H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #218: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 0-48; D 49-1; I 1-0, 9/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #225: Motion Rejected 49-49: R 1-47; D 47-2; I 1-0, 9/25/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #226: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 1-48; D 48-1; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #227: Motion Rejected 44-53: R 1-46; D 42-7; I 1-0, 9/26/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #228: Motion Rejected 45-52: R 2-46; D 42-6; I 1-0, 10/1/02, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #241: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 48-0; D 1-46; I 1-1, 11/13/02, Kerry Voted Nay)

Senate Dems Stalled Homeland Security For 112 Days. (H.R. 5005, Received In The Senate 7/30/02; H.R. 5005, CQ Vote #249: Passed 90-9: R 48-0; D 41-8; I 1-1, 11/19/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 10 (Kerry Negative Ads)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry Negative Ads. "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate." (Dana Milbank And Jim VandeHei, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity," The Washington Post, 5/31/04)

The Facts On Kerry And Negative Ads

Kerry Negative Advertising Against President Bush:

From last September through March 4th, John Kerry spent $7.9 million on media buys and during that time 80% ($6.3 million) of those ad dollars funded negative attacks against the President. These negative spots ran more than 15,327 times. During that time John Kerry ran 29 different ads, 16 (55%) of which directly attacked the President and/or his policies.

Since March 4th, Kerry has spent $61.1 million on media buys and during that time 26% ($15.9 million) of those ad dollars have attacked the President. Kerry's negative spots have aired more than 13,336 times. Since the close of the primary season, John Kerry has released 10 ads and 5 (50%) have been negative.

In total, John Kerry has spent more than $69 million on media buys since last September. Of that $69 million, 41% ($28.3 million) of those ad dollars funded an attack on the President or his policies. Kerry's negative spots have aired more than 28,663 times over the past eight months. Since September, John Kerry has run 39 different ads, 21 (54%) of which have directly attacked the President and/or his policies. (Source: Analysis Based On CMAG Data, Actual Spot Runs Only Available In The Top 100 Markets)

[Larry]

Despite His Rhetoric, No Possible Way Kerry Could Pay For His Health Care Proposal By Only Raising Taxes On People Making More Than $200,000. If Kerry repealed the Bush tax cuts solely for those making $200,000 or more, it would only result in $250 billion over 10 years.

Unfortunately, that's not true.

Remember, whenever Bush wants to talk about how small his tax cuts are, he assumes that they'll only last a few years. (That way, when he talks about how much they'll cost over ten years, the numbers look smaller. In fact, that's how Bush was able to "compromise" on a tax cut that was "only half" of his original proposal, yet still had every single thing he'd wanted.)

But, Bush has also committed to making the cuts permanant. (Although, he keeps submitting budget forcasts that don't have those numbers figured in: That way he can predict lower deficits ahead: By baseing his 'forecasts' on numbers that he's already promised that he won't live up to.)

In fact, remember: The GOP has already announced that any candidate who simply proposes not extending the cuts is "raising taxes".

In short, Kerry's proposal to repeal the last chunk of Bush tax cuts, (which haven't started, yet) would 'raise' $250B over two years (after that, they're scheduled to revert, anyway, unless Bush wins), and his health-care proposal is estimated to cost $900B over ten years.

[AJWatson3]

maybe Kerry will hire Bang to do a Bush cartoon... with him walking around, a small white spot below his nose saying, "you looking?"

that wouldn't be misleading...

[Larry]

Re: Kerry and the Patriot Act.

Bush Says: Kerry would repeal portions of the Patriot Act.

Original article says: "Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. "

20 paragraphs of 'support' or so, much of which doesn't even mention Kerry, (Well, Dean, said this, and the ACLU said this, and . . ) And guess what? Even the things that actually relate to Kerry in this 'response' say that he wants to put tougher standards on them, not repeal them. (The 'response' even quotes Kerry saying those wiretaps should still be used in terrorism cases.)