"Lies, Damned Lies, and Political Stump Speeches"

[Pangloss]

This campaign is becoming characterized by deceit. Forget Iraq/WMDs -- I'm talking about deception taking place right now.

 

I want to know when Kerry is going to drop this ridiculous "ties to the Saudi royal family" line. That's the kind of Michael Moore tactic that's going to get him back into trouble. The reason he was so far behind in the polls before is because of lack of credibility in his attacks. He's dipping right back into that same well these days.

 

In addition:

- "$200 billion" is not the amount we've spent on Iraq. It's half that.

- "1.6 million jobs lost" is double the actual figure.

- Pharms got a $139 billion bailout is well documented to be false (see article here).

- "CEOs getting big tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas" is also false (see article above). They get a tax break for keeping income earned overseas out of the country, and that break was part of the original corporate income tax from a century ago.

- "We're shutting fire houses who are the first-responders here in America." Misleading. Nothing's ever come up before in the area of federal funding for local firefighters. This smacks of taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of the issues, like when he talks about school budgets being cut back and implies that that's the federal government's fault (when in fact it's because state budgets have been cut).

 

I agree with Howard Kurtz and the Reliable Sources crew from Sunday -- Kerry *must* know these facts to be inaccurate by now, the way the media has been pounding it home. He can't not know.

 

So how can anyone say that Bush is a liar and Kerry is not?

 

 

Of course, the Bush campaign hasn't done any better.

- "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." He was actually *pardoned*! (This was the guy who sold nuclear secrets to North Korea!)

- "75 percent of "known al-Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." Blatantly false. This percentage is obviously based on the number of known AQ at the time of 9/11, compared with the number of captured men presumed to be AQ. That's hardly a valid test, even if you set aside the fact that AQ has obviously replaced a lot of those men.

- "We've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the President." Misleading. The administration wants to cut funding for the program used to secure and eliminate nuclear/chem/bio weapons in the former Soviet Union. He's basing this claim on the fact that overall DoE spending it up 75%.

 

(More about the Bush errors can be found here .)

 

Comments?

[atinymonkey]

This campaign is becoming characterized by deceit. Forget Iraq/WMDs -- I'm talking about deception taking place right now.

 

I want to know when Kerry is going to drop this ridiculous "ties to the Saudi royal family" line. That's the kind of Michael Moore tactic that's going to get him back into trouble. The reason he was so far behind in the polls before is because of lack of credibility in his attacks. He's dipping right back into that same well these days.

 

I haven't looked at the other statements that your concerned over, but the connection to the Saudi royal family is very valid. Both Bush Jnr and Snr have oil companys that deal with Saudi oil, and the royal family is linked to that. Bush Snr never said he didn't have a connection, and I don't see why you would consider it a lie.

 

So far as pot shots go, Kerry's is right on target.

[bloodhound]

its sad to see the candidates of one of the worlds biggest demcracy stoop so low just to win an election.

[Dave]

That's what these debates are all about tbh. The American people do like a good "debate".

[Pangloss]

I haven't looked at the other statements that your concerned over, but the connection to the Saudi royal family is very valid. Both Bush Jnr and Snr have oil companys that deal with Saudi oil, and the royal family is linked to that. Bush Snr never said he didn't have a connection, and I don't see why you would consider it a lie.

 

I don't consider it a lie. My complaint here was more along the lines of attempts to mislead or misconstrue, or play on Michael Moore type fears.

 

However, upon further reflection on my part, I think perhaps I should have discarded that point before posting this thread. Kerry's point here is more along the lines of ties with big foreign business than, say, Michael Moore's assertions of outrageous dealings with the bin Laden family on 9/11. So perhaps I was a bit off the mark in that sense in my first post above. Consider this a retraction, and thanks for bringing it up so that I considered it further.

 

Unfortunately none of this affects my other points about deception by the Kerry campaign, so my larger point seems to still be a valid one.

[Douglas]

This campaign is becoming characterized by deceit. Forget Iraq/WMDs -- I'm talking about deception taking place [i']right now This smacks of taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of the issues, like when he talks about school budgets being cut back and implies that that's the federal government's fault (when in fact it's because state budgets have been cut).

I think you're right about Kerry taking big advantage of the people that don't know what's going on. I'm sure Bush is too.....but he's on the defensive.

Did you hear today that Edwards says that Christopher Reeves and others like him, may have been cured in the near future, if stem cell research had been pushed?

The unemployment rate is 5.4% about the same as Clinton's when he was re-elected in '96.

Highest deficit in history....Yes, but just 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP)...(thanks Sayo) which is less than Reagan, Carter and the beginning of the Clinton administration.

[Sayonara]

I think you're right about Kerry taking big advantage of the people that don't know what's going on. I'm sure Bush is [ins=10/13/2004]all politicians do[/ins'] too

Fixed

[john5746]

I think you're right about Kerry taking big advantage of the people that don't know what's going on. I'm sure Bush is too.....but he's on the defensive.

Did you hear today that Edwards says that Christopher Reeves and others like him' date=' may have been cured in the near future, if stem cell research had been pushed?

The unemployment rate is 5.4% about the same as Clinton's when he was re-elected in '96.

Highest deficit in history....Yes, but just 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP)...(thanks Sayo) which is less than Reagan, Carter and the beginning of the Clinton administration.[/quote']

 

There is enough blame to go around. I heard Edwards and he DID NOT say what you listed. Each side takes things out of context and try to spin it.

 

Have you wondered how unemployment could be relatively low, yet jobs have been lost? Has the working population decreased?

 

As for the deficit, does it look like Bush will try to do anything to change the trend?

[Douglas]

Fixed

Well Sayonara, I'm chuckling, guess I'll have to cave in on that one.

[Douglas]

There is enough blame to go around. I heard Edwards and he DID NOT say what you listed. Each side takes things out of context and try to spin it.

 

Have you wondered how unemployment could be relatively low' date=' yet jobs have been lost? Has the working population decreased?

 

As for the deficit, does it look like Bush will try to do anything to change the trend?[/quote']

Of course he didn't say what I listed, I wasn't quoting him, I was paraphrasing. He came damn close to saying what I said.

 

From Y2K to 9/11 the number of jobs increased. After 9/11, the unemployment rate dropped to around 8%, today it's a very respectible 5.4% (roughly).

 

Why change the trend on the deficit, it's running at a very tolerable 4% of GDP and dropping slowly.

[john5746]

Of course he didn't say what I listed' date=' I wasn't quoting him, I was paraphrasing. He came damn close to saying what I said.

 

From Y2K to 9/11 the number of jobs increased. After 9/11, the unemployment rate dropped to around 8%, today it's a very respectible 5.4% (roughly).

 

Why change the trend on the deficit, it's running at a very tolerable 4% of GDP and dropping slowly.[/quote']

 

“Well, if we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”

 

Since you didn't follow my point, # of jobs have DECLINED during Bush's term. The reason unemployment went down is because people gave up looking for work or "settled". I was one of those people.

 

Trend - meaning SLOPE of the line. I didn't see any data with the trend going down.

[Pangloss]

Since you didn't follow my point, # of jobs have DECLINED during Bush's term.

 

Yes, by 0.2% of the total population. (600,000/300,000,000)

 

Eek.

 

It's also grown steadily for 13 months straight, and by substantial sums.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly valid to say that this recovery has been imperfect, and the primary signs of that imperfection are jobs and inflation. But you don't see people panicking over inflation (most people aren't even aware that it's an issue again), and inflation is actually more of a problem now than unemployment.

 

But it is a recovery. Growth rate is as high as it was during the peak Clinton years, if not higher, and double what it was for Bush 1. And something like half of that growth is due to the tax cut.

 

Y'all watch out for that ideological rhetoric now, ya hear?

[john5746]

The problem is that it is a recovery for SOME people. The middle class is getting squeezed more. It makes sense to cut off tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Inflation is caused by too much money for too little goods. I don't know if I agree with that as being a big problem, other than healthcare and energy.

 

Greenspan needs to quit monkeying with the rates, he made the stock market crash worse and will slow the recovery. He needs to retire.

[Pangloss]

The problem is that it is a recovery for SOME people. The middle class is getting squeezed more. It makes sense to cut off tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

I agree with the first two sentences, anyway. Both the wealthy and the poor get away with outright murder when it comes to taxation. NEITHER pays their fair share. Which is why I've always been a fan of flat tax and complete removal of corporate taxes. But color me wierd. (Sayonara has the fuscia crayon right now, but here's a nice mauve....)

 

Greenspan's "monkeying" with the rates is helping, not hurting. Only partisan ideologues on the far left are saying otherwise, which really tells you everything you need to know right there. Between his slight steering and the fact that the economy is surging, we're doing pretty well. The concern is about what happens once the wage-price spiral kicks in.

 

That's right -- the dreaded wage-price spiral. Right now the inflationary factors are, as you pointed out, energy (high price of oil) and healthcare. But watch what happens in six months, when the available labor pool is getting slimmer and the people who are being hired right now go in for their first raise.

 

And yet Kerry keeps harping about "the worst economy since the great depression"!

 

See that's what gets me about the far-left crowd (not that the far right is any better, but I'm going to give the far left a hard time for a minute; sue me). They're trying to convince us on the one hand that the economy is a disaster area. And yet are we still slashing interest rates to spur the economy? No, nobody even asks Greenspan that question anymore -- they asking when he's going to RAISE interest rates in order to stop inflation -- the exact OPPOSITE. Because the economy is SURGING and everyone knows this. So it's stupid and hypocritical to tell us that the economy is still in a shambles.

[Sayonara]

I don't have ANY of the crayons. It must still be up your nose.

[Skye]

Yes, by 0.2% of the total population. (600,000/300,000,000)

It's pretty unusual to relate unemployment to the total population.

[Pangloss]

I don't have ANY of the crayons. It must still be up your nose.

 

Doh!

 

 

It's pretty unusual to relate unemployment to the total population.

 

Kinda puts things in perspective, though, doesn't it?

[Skye]

I agree that the original point was misleading in using real numbers, and it needed a different perspective. However, I think it's better to use percentage changes of the actual thing you are looking at. The change in any subpopulation is going to look small in relation to the total population.

[Phi for All]

Kinda puts things in perspective, though, doesn't it?

Not really, for me. Why would you add in non-workers like children and retirees when talking about unemployment?

 

Boy, speaking of stumps, that last debate (not deserving of it's own thread) was a bit disappointing. It was so obvious that both of them had read focus group results on what buzz words worked with debate watchers. Same old, same old, with very little substance added, imo.

 

I was so bummed that Kerry didn't respond to the stem cell opportunity he was given, and neither candidate responded well to the "What would you tell a worker who had lost his job to outsourcing" question.

 

I thought Bush was going to screw himself into the ground when he started to say it wasn't valid to quote major news sources, but he stopped himself. He had a couple of jokes that fell flatter than a pancake, too ("Gosh, I sure hope it's not the administration!").

 

I wanted to slap both of them for being so statistical, Kerry especially. He had a real chance to surge ahead if he'd just forged some new ground and stopped quoting the old numbers. I think they both made that same mistake since the debates are really for the undecided voters, not for people who've made up their mind ages ago based on the old rhetoric.

[blike]

I thought Bush was going to screw himself into the ground when he started to say it wasn't valid to quote major news sources, but he stopped himself.

haha, that was hilarious.

I wanted to slap both of them for being so statistical, Kerry especially.

I got tired of statistics real fast. Kerry probably wasted a good 15-20 seconds quoting statistics on almost everything. Bush wasted a lot of time too, but I think Kerry had the edge on time used for statistics.

 

The debate was just a rehash of everything we've already heard from both sides.

 

I want a debate where opponents can directly address each other and ask each other direct questions. I want to see them argue back and forth, taking turns countering and asking each other questions. I want a debate where the candidates an speak from their heart, not from what they've memorized (it's so obvious both candidates pre-memorized all kinds of lines, especially buzz-words). I just want to see a genuine debate; like old highschool debates. There are way too many rules. These debates were basically extended commercials for each party. The candidates weren't challenged on any issues.

[Douglas]

It's pretty unusual to relate unemployment to the total population.

I can't speak for pangloss, but Kerry never talks about unemployment as a function of the percentage of the total work force (about 5.4%).

 

Kerry talks about the number (highest in history) of unemployed, which certainly relates to the total population of the work force.

[Phi for All]

Did you notice how they rarely used their 30 second rebuttals? I think they both were leery of letting the other make a sound bite in that short amount of time that would stick with a listener easier than some of their two minute arguments. I hate that we are that shallow, but it really is true of the average listener.

 

I think this is what keeps them from allowing the kind of debate you're talking about, blike. That and letting their emotions making them seem inflammatory. I'm with you, though, I LOVE seeing a little fire and passion. I think both candidates would be more interesting. It would lend flavor to Kerry (mostly ketchup flavor ) but would probably make Bush's mouth get ahead of his brain again.

 

Imagine five candidates in a round table debate....

[Douglas]

Did you notice how they rarely used their 30 second rebuttals? I think they both were leery of letting the other make a sound bite in that short amount of time that would stick with a listener easier than some of their two minute arguments. I hate that we are that shallow' date=' but it really is true of the average listener.

 

I think this is what keeps them from allowing the kind of debate you're talking about, blike. That and letting their emotions making them seem inflammatory. I'm with you, though, I LOVE seeing a little fire and passion. I think both candidates would be more interesting. It would lend flavor to Kerry (mostly ketchup flavor ) but would probably make Bush's mouth get ahead of his brain again.

 

Imagine five candidates in a round table debate....[/quote']

Yes, I noticed about the 30 second rebutals. I also noticed that after the religious statement, things quieted down a bit...the rhetoric I mean. Even their closing statements were pretty calm.

 

One thing though (I don't know the answer to this). Why did both Edwards and Kerry bring up the fact that Chaney's daughter is a lesbian??? What was their point??

[Skye]

Yep, and I think that simply stating the raw numbers is misleading, I said so in my last post.

 

(edit: this is inreply to post #21)

[Phi for All]

One thing though (I don't know the answer to this). Why did both Edwards and Kerry bring up the fact that Chaney's daughter is a lesbian??? What was their point??

Probably for the same reason they used to mention Newt Gingrich's sister. It makes the politician seem worse if they hold a viewpoint that goes directly against a close relative.

 

It was not to bash Cheney's daughter, imo, it was more to say, look, here's a guy who is against his own daughter's choice of lifestyle. Personally, I think it's a double-edged sword. It could come off as gay-bashing, it could also make some think, Oh cool, Cheney's daughter is gay, maybe it will make him more compassionate towards homosexuals.