The Bush Ads

Golly... I'm sure we will get an apology from the Bush campaign and the RNC.
Right. Or too Right.

 

John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

 

Great post, Chump. I'm still waiting for that apology from the Bush Campaign.

 

That's great. There's noting like setting the record straight to deflate the attacks.

 

The unfortunate part is that the bobble-heads will not dig far enough to find this information and some even try to pooh-pooh the truth or change the subject when the truth is brought up.

 

That's true as far as this thread or this board is concerened. But from what I've heard, it sounds like Kerry is fighting Bush's incorrect ads with some of these actual facts.

 

I just hope that enough people listen to the truth, as opposed to the $170 million worth of 30 second ads that are sure to be rife with inaccuracies.

 

$16 million wasted... another $100 million or so to go...

(And yes, I know that the GOP claims the ads helped Bush, but I won't believe them until I see some objective results.)

Via American Research Group...
_____________
The First 100 Days



Panel members did not find this spot to be engaging, memorable, or persuasive. Repeat viewing did not improve any evaluations.

This spot demands too much of the viewer's attention. The middle panel above is a excellent example of an ad asking too much of the viewer. There are 8 separate elements in the frame that require attention. The demands of the spot negate the impact of the final frames as panel members were unable to play back any reasons that John Kerry is wrong on taxes or wrong on defense after viewing the ad.

The positive Bush-Cheney spot that is running with this spot had similar test results among panel members. This positive spot has 21 distinct scenes within 30 seconds and panel members had a difficult time playing back the ad. This positive spot also demands too much of the viewer's attention.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This exploratory research is based on a panel of 10 independent voters (6 women and 4 men, ages 27 to 68) in New Hampshire who viewed a videotaped copy of the advertising as changes in their skin conductance were automatically recorded. The graph above shows the average combined change per second from participant baseline scores in micro-siemens. The higher the score, the greater the engagement with the advertisement. These results cannot be projected to any other group beyond the participants.

 

“We're dealing with first-time responders to make sure they've got what's needed to be able to respond. “ – Bush, 3/27/2002



Bush's Failure to Support Fire Fighters and First Responders Laid Out Clearly at Fire Fighters Legilative Conference

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/03/ale04004.html

News Release from the International Association of Fire Fighters

WASHINGTON, DC -- International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, General President Harold Schaitberger told a crowd of more than 800 professional fire fighters from across the nation today that the fire fighters’ union tried to work with President Bush on proper funding of homeland security needs that have forced fire stations to close, two-thirds of America’s fire departments to operate under-staffed, $250 million cuts in the FIRE Act grant program that helps fire departments fund equipment needs, and hundreds of millions of dollars in other reductions in programs for first responders, but President Bush failed to act. Schaitberger said:

“…In looking ahead at this November's critical election, it's important for each of you, for all of our members -- and for that matter for everyone -- to know that the IAFF tried to work with George W. Bush early on.

“Shortly after that horrific day on 9/11 I sat in the White House mess and told Karl Rove, then White House Political Director Ken Mehlman, and Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin, that we wanted to work with the Administration.

“We provided information on first responder needs. We told them about staffing deficiencies. We justified increased FIRE Act funding. Ironically, since that meeting, three independent studies -- even ones led by Republicans -- have all verified and supported our contentions.

I followed up with then FEMA Director Joe Albaugh and met several times with Tom Ridge in the fall of 2001. Long before there was a Department of Homeland Security and before he was the Secretary. But our overtures were generally spurned. And our suggestions disregarded.

They wanted to federalize, and nationalize homeland security. And we agreed. But they wouldn't agree to provide help for our communities. They considered the hiring of more fire fighters to be a local matter. And we said, “Hell No.”

The fact is, George Bush's record on OUR homeland security issues is so poor that Time Magazine this morning is reporting that he has ordered his Homeland Security Department staff to take time away from their duties to find opportunities to "pose" George Bush in "photo-ops" on homeland security issues. We need a president who is gives us action, not photo-ops.”

To read the full text of President Schaitberger’s statement visit http://www.iaff.org.

The International Association of Fire Fighters, headquartered in Washington, DC, is the 16th largest union among the 64 national unions that makeup the AFL-CIO. The IAFF represents more than 263,000 full-time professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel who protect 80 percent of the nation’s population. More than 2,900 affiliates and their members protect nearly 6,000 communities in Canada and every state in the U.S

 

It would be interesting to track, throughout the campaign, the number of times the Bush folks say Kerry is not telling the truth or flip-flopping or exaggerating and compare it to the number of times the Bush folks are caught in a real lie vs. the same for Kerry.

Via Josh Marshall...
_______________
As you know, it's now been revealed that the White House threatened the top government Medicare actuary that he'd be fired if he revealed the true costs of the Medicare reform passed last year.

What struck me most about this story was how generally muted the reaction to it was.

I don't think this was because it wasn't reported widely or because people didn't take note. I think people just aren't that surprised that this administration would practice deceit in such a casual, even routine, manner.

It's just not surprising anymore. It's expected. (Pat Moynihan died too soon to see the most bracing example of defining -- governmental -- deviancy down.)

In any case, now we have another example from the latest Bush campaign ad.

This one uses last year's $87 billion Iraq supplemental, and the fact that Kerry voted against it, to accuse him of voting against each of the various line items for troop funding included in the bill.

Now, this is inherently misleading since I believe Kerry, like many other Dems, voted for an alternative bill which would have funded these needs by rescinding part of Bush tax cuts. So to say he voted against these particulars is really a distortion of the legislative process.

(Admittedly, it's not quite as bad as what they tried to pull last week, but still pretty bad. In that case, the President charged Kerry with a reckless plan to cut Intelligence spending in 1995, without mentioning that the agency targeted was mismanaging the funds in question or, much more importantly, that the Congress, then under Republican control, voted a substantially larger cut than the one Kerry had proposed.)

What's more, the commercial highlights three budget items, each of which were ones the president opposed and had to be bullied into supporting -- by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The text narration says: ""No body armor for troops in combat. No higher combat pay. No to better health care for reservists and their families. No -- wrong on defense."

What's most bracing about this narration is that this is actually a pretty factual statement if the target is the president, not Kerry.

Now, one claim really stands out here. The ad says Kerry voted no to "higher combat pay."

This is truly a milestone in the long bilious history of gall.

If you watched this debate at the time you'll remember that last summer the Bush administration went to great lengths to cut combat pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save money for other priorities. They only relented when Democrats, Republicans and most of all military-oriented publications like Army Times expressed so much outrage that they had no choice but abandon the effort.

Here's a snippet from an article which appeared on August 15th, 2003 in the San Francisco Chronicle which gives a brief glimpse of their ignominious retreat ...

The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.

The Pentagon's support for the idea of rolling back "imminent danger pay" by $75 a month and "family separation allowances" for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004.

And so the White House which was pushing to save money by reducing combat pay for troops currently serving in two combat zones is now challenging Kerry's national security bona-fides by alleging that he opposed increases in combat pay.

Sometimes you try to dress it up or package it in some artful way. But the truth is irreducibly blunt: lying and indifference to a factual record often no further away than the google web site is the hallmark of this administration.

Up is down.

-- Josh Marshall

 

Josh again... well said...
__________________
Let me follow up on last night's post on the surreal shamelessness of the president's new TV ad.

As we noted, the new ad uses a very strained argument to allege that Kerry opposed an increase in military combat pay when in fact the White House was caught red-handed and quite publicly trying to cut combat pay for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq only a few months ago.

I mean, how do you top that?

One could speculate about some weird sort of projection. A more likely possibility is that they're accusing Kerry first of that which they were in fact first guilty as a way of innoculating themselves.

All intriguing theories. But I suspect the reality is more banal. They just don't care. It's a handy attack. They've got funds to run the ads. And they figure people's memories are short and the press is too lazy or stupid to call them on it.

Clearly, the Kerry campaign should highlight the inaccuracy of the charge. But I think they should be focusing their fire on the shamelessness, the disrespect for the intelligence of the public and the press.

They simply can't stop lying.

That point should be hit again and again and again. And not simply -- or even primarily -- on the narrow point of dishonesty but on the broader issue of disrespect for the people they're communicating with.

'Disrespect' doesn't quite convey the intended message. But it comes close. It may be closer to 'contempt' though I think the attitude is somehow breezier than that. They don't think any rules apply to them.

They want to say up is down. And they're sure they can get away with it because they think the people who are listening are either chumps or that their trust can be exploited endlessly.

-- Josh Marshall

 

Here's Will...
________________
By the way, here's Will...
_________________
ballot box
Enemies of the States
If you're against Bush, you're against America.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 3:18 PM PT

If you oppose George Bush's policies, or if you're supported by anybody who opposes George Bush's policies, you're anti-American.

That was the message of the 1988 presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, who suggested that his opponent from Massachusetts was against the Pledge of Allegiance. Now it's his son's campaign message, too.

Facts don't matter when you run on this theme. In June 1988, George H.W. Bush said of Michael Dukakis, "I'll never understand, when it came to his desk, why he vetoed a bill that called for the Pledge of Allegiance to be said in the schools of Massachusetts. I'll never understand it. We are one nation under God. Our kids should say the Pledge of Allegiance."

The bill Dukakis vetoed didn't "call for" the pledge to be said. It imposed criminal penalties on teachers who failed to start the day by leading students in the pledge. The Massachusetts Supreme Court told Dukakis it was unconstitutional. But never mind. According to Bush, Dukakis was against saying the pledge and being one nation under God.

History repeats itself. Last week, George W. Bush aired a TV ad in which the following charges appeared on the screen for nine seconds: "John Kerry's Plan: Weaken Fight Against Terrorists"; "John Kerry's Plan: Delay Defending America."

What was Bush's evidence for the first charge? His campaign cited four Kerry quotes. In the first, Kerry called for "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." In the second, Kerry called for "provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that there is today under the Patriot Act." In the third, Kerry said, "I voted for the USA Patriot Act in the Senate right after 9/11 to advance our security at home, but I am concerned that Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department is abusing the powers conferred on it by that act." In the fourth, Kerry said, "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night."

Among those four statements, I count zero in favor of weakening the fight against terrorists and two in favor of protecting American security. But never mind. According to Bush, "Kerry's Plan" is "Weaken Fight Against Terrorists."

What was Bush's evidence for the second charge? His campaign cited eight quotes, of which four expressed a position. In the first, Kerry said Bush should "take the time, for a period of time, to continue to build [support]" for using force against Iraq. In the second, Kerry said he would have "exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians." In the third, Kerry speculated that if Bush had built up U.S. troops around Iraq more gradually, "It might have allowed you to use the United Nations process to really build consent." In the fourth, Kerry said, "You have to try to build the multilateral effort, even if it fails."

Among those four statements, I count four in favor of delaying the use of force in Iraq, zero against ultimately using force in Iraq, zero in favor of making the use of force contingent on U.N. approval, and zero in favor of delaying the defense of America. We now know that contrary to what Bush told us, Iraq had no WMD programs capable of threatening America. But never mind. According to Bush, "Kerry's Plan" is "Delay Defending America."

On Wednesday, Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary under George H.W. Bush and is now vice president under George W. Bush, denounced Kerry for saying at a March 8 fund-raiser, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." Kerry's comment was stupid and off-message. Cheney's was not. In a scripted, 150-word rebuttal, Cheney used the phrase "foreigners" or "foreign leaders"—which he knew Kerry had never used—five times. Cheney mocked the "unnamed foreigners he's [Kerry] been spending time with" and demanded, "We have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

You get the message. Kerry's been spending time with the wrong sort of people. What's good for them must be bad for you. This is the message segregationists delivered to white voters 50 years ago about white politicians who met with blacks. "Foreigners" were the subjects of a different message: McCarthyism. Cheney's speech combines the two: What is Kerry saying to our enemies that makes them so supportive of his candidacy?

"Of the many nations that have joined our coalition [in Iraq]—allies and friends of the United States—Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt," Cheney went on. What was Cheney's evidence for this charge? "Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, 'window dressing,' " said the vice president. "Italy, which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf—was Italy's contribution just window dressing?" Cheney concluded that Kerry "speaks as if only those who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of earning his respect."

There you go. Kerry points out what everyone knows: The Iraq war was an American operation dressed up as a "coalition of the willing," in which Britain was the only other country to play a major role. Cheney calls this "contempt" for "friends of the United States." Nineteen Italians get killed in a war that Bush and Cheney started against the will of most Italians, but it's Kerry, not Bush, who has shown contempt for Italy and other "friends of the United States." Better yet, the foreign leaders with whom Kerry has consorted don't just oppose Bush's policy in Iraq; they "oppose America's objectives." If Jacques Chirac imagines that what he opposed in Iraq was Bush's method of achieving objectives shared by France, he fails to understand that Bush's policies, by definition, are America's objectives.

Just like it says here in our Constitution, Jacques: L'etat c'est moi.

 

Again, the point you are ignoring is that Bush (and you Bush bobbleheads) has NO room to talk about negative campaigning after the scorched earth campaign of 2000.

Besides, what is Kerry going to say about GWB and his policies? So far, this administration has been the single worst administration in my memory with more scandals than anyone in the past 30 years. The Plame affair, GOP staffers stealing Dem emails, and using 9/11 for political gain are overshadowed by the REALLY big problems of Iraq, environmental policy, and the deficit. (edit: not to mention the jobs situation or, lagging indicator )

Kerry has no choice but to go negative since the only things that GWB and his crew have done are negative. Remember, this is coming from someone who threw his weight (not inconsiderable) fully behind Bush for Afghanistan and didn't start rethinking things until they started pushing the VICTORY Act. Heck, I was even wishy washy on the PATRIOT Act until they actually started abusing its provisions to shutdown political rallies.

 

The president is running a campaign in which he LIES about his opponent's policies in the hopes that he will snow enough Americans into ignoring the lies and crimes of his own administration.

Besides, if there is a "win at any cost, and rules, civility, respect for the voters be damned" attitude, it comes directly from the GOP, not the Democrats.

 

That was really the point that I was trying to make to basso. He is acting as if GWB is some pure as driven snow angel when it comes ot attack politics and as far as I am concerned it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Thanks Rim:

That Will's pretty perceptive.

Do you think he knows anthing about basketball?

 

Will spoke about the Bush ads yesterday on npr.

listen to him here:
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=DAY&showDate=18-Mar-2004&segNum=6&mediaPref=WM

Will sounds kinda hot!