(Regarding the second Bush/Kerry debate)


1. Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)




2. How much does it sway your opinion about a candidate when you catch him/her in a lie?

"Lie" is a rather strong word, I prefer "loose definition of the truth" instead.

Bush's reply to the re-importation of drugs really sent up some red flags for me.

I haven't yet. Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.

And that's why the FDA and that's why the surgeon general are looking very carefully to make sure it can be done in a safe way. I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you.

All of that, inspite of the fact that:



and...

-Congressman Gil Gutknecht's website


I don't buy the president's concern for our "safety" I believe that he buys the pharmaceutical industries interpretaiton of "safety" which is-anything that is a danger to their profit is a threat to our "safety"

I agree with nebraska29's assessment of the President's response to the importation of drugs question. It's and absurd stance on the President's part.

In the interests of Brevity (as I got to NJ 3 hours ago after an 18 hour drive) I will just toss out one issue I had. This one is with Senator Kerry, I use an issue with Senator Kerry, because for one, on this particular issue he must think we are all morons, and also simply as balance to the previous post.

Senator Kerry said several times that the President inherited a 1.6 trillion dollar (I think it was 1.6) surplus and now we have a 2.4 trillion dollar deficit (I think he said 2.4). I might be off on the numbers, but you get the idea.

He lays the entire blame for the loss of jobs, revenues, and sagging economy at the Presidents feet. However, the reality of the blame for the state of these things falls almost entirely on:

Crash of the Economy:
The Tech market Crash
The 9/11 Attack
The Enron and Tyco scandals


Unforseen Spending Needs:
Upgrades to Homeland Security
War on Terror
War in Iraq


Now, considering how all of these things hit at the same time I think it is remarkable that we started to turn around as quickly as we did. Some of that has to do with the tax cut, alot of it has to do with America simply being America. But to suggest that the President is completely responsible is ridiculous to me.

Now I have a real issue with the out of control spend in congress, and Senator Kerry did make a valid point that the President did not Veto any spending bills. However, the constitution puts the power of the purse strings in the hands of congress and Senator Kerry has either failed to vote on or voted yes for virtually every one of the spending bills that passed through the Senate since the economy and revenues crashed (One notable exception was 87billon originally requested for Iraq). Yet he seems to accept no responsibility for the deficit.

The President is mostly responsible for the costs associated with the War in Iraq. However, it is both houses of Congress that craft the final spending bills and both houses of congress passed those bills. Senator Kerry is a member of Congress. The President Failed to veto any spending bills, Senator Kerry failed to vote on, or vote no on, nearly every spending bill. This is not to suggest that Senator Kerry is responsible either, it is merely pointing out that the President is not alone.

It is simply misleading at best to suggest that President Bush is the only, or even the primary responsible party for the deficit or the state of the economy.

You can debate if the tax cut is partially to blame. That is a reasonable discussion. You can debate a multitude of discretionary spending choices. Also reasonable arguments. You can debate the necessity of the War in Iraq and the effect the cost of that War has on the budget, also a reasonable argument.

But Senator Kerry looses ALOT credibility with me when he uses misleading rhetoric instead of focusing the real issues. The rhetoric may make better sound bites, but it is dishonest, and down right insulting.

Just a side note, I think Bush did well in the Debate, especially when compared to the first one. However, I believe Kerry performed BRILLIANTLY. I didn't agree with everything he said (nor did I agree with alot of what the President said), but he was exceptionally well prepared, well spoken and really had superb timing.

It might be different for those who watched the debate, as all I could do is hear it on the radio in my work truck while travelling the desolate wastelands of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but I think Senator Kerry really sounded Presidential last night.

One point I would like to make to the man. Several times now I have heard him say that he mis-spoke in regards the the famous quote "I actually voted for it, before I voted against it." Each time he failed to follow that statement with further explanation. I understand his reasons for voting against it because he has made mention to that in both debates. But he has never articulated what spending bill he voted for, before he voted against it (it was actually a procedural vote on an amendment to the bill as I understand it). If he wants to get this quote off the table he needs to directly address it. Simply saying "I felt the wealthiest American's should share in the cost" does not help the average, marginally informed American understand the issu. Especially if Senator Kerry does not make that statement directly after mentioning that he mis-spoke. Just a sincere offer of advice on that one.

Kerry laid a whopper when he stated: General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. And guess what? They retired General Shinseki for telling him that.

Shinseki, in fact, had announced his pending retirement about a year prior, as verified by Factcheck.org.

Kerry also stated that the administration went through commanders until they found someone who would agree with their assessment. Gee, Mr. Kerry, would you be so kind as to tell us the names of these alleged commanders?
General Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM Commander, was in place long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. And he was the commander of all joint operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why does the media let him get away with this?

General Franks was recommended by General Zinni to succeed him as CENTCOM. That recommendation was made and approved by Sec. Cohen in the Clinton Administration.



Good question. Perhaps this might be an answer....

From this memo.....



I have personally worked for ABC News and I have seen their liberal bias "up close and personal". I am somewhat surprised however that they are stupid enough to actually put out a memo to that effect.....

To me, the biggest and by far away the whopper of the night was the drug importation issue- GW flat out straight faced lied- Nebraska has the salient points in his post- but the whole "safety" of the drug source from Canada is probably one of the most bald faced lies the republicans have been spewing forth for the last 4 years.

And Aquilla and DTOM- why do you let the republicans get away with THAT?

CR,

Well.....speaking for myself, not only am I not a Republican, but I'm also not employed in any capacity regarding public relations and media affairs for the Bush campaign.

So, the purpose of this thread being to highlight distortions and loose facts by the candidates........I posted two that stood out for me, as you posted one that you saw. I want media accountability for public statements made by all candidates....I'm not really sure how Aquilla and I became accountable for GW, anymore than I would hold you accountable for Kerry's remark about Shinseki.

1. Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)

Oh, gosh, there’s just so much to choose from. I’ll start with an inconsequential, but funny one; the one where Bush made a joke about not owning a timber company (which was a misinterpretations of what Kerry had said about him receiving money from a timber company) and it turning out that, yes, he did (per good ol’ factcheck.org). The only reason I mention this one is because I about spit my coffee all over the computer when I read this line on MSNBC:



The biggest, most outrageous lie (to me) is Bush’s assertion that tort reform is the answer to skyrocketing medical costs and that Kerry’s health care plan will put “government in control” of health care.

Bush’s claim that tort reform is the underlying cause of the high cost of health care is based on ONE study whose conclusions were held suspect by the GAO, who concluded that there was “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” Cheney's favorite source This is essentially a red herring Bush is throwing out there to show his disdain for lawyers and Kerry/Edwards' law backgrounds.

While neither candidate’s health care plan is ideal, Kerry’s plan will reduce the number of uninsured after the reform from 41.3 million to 24.3 million, with a remaining 8% still left uninsured (as opposed to Bush’s plan, which will leave 14%). Side note: This is, to me, the most crucial domestic issue facing our country. Living in California, I have seen first-hand the impact the uninsured have on a state's economy. Bush’s plan’s coverage declines as people get older, while Kerry’s increases. As could be predicted, Bush’s plan benefits are higher for people with higher incomes while Kerry’s benefits those people with lower incomes, who need it the most. Source: The Lewin Group


As for money forked over by you and I for health care:

2. How much does it sway your opinion about a candidate when you catch him/her in a lie?

It depends on what the lying is about and how dangerous the lie is. Kerry’s exaggeration of the number of jobs lost by the Bush administration* isn’t nearly as egregious or as dangerous as Bush asserting that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

*which may turn out to be correct after all, depending on job figures in the next few months.

Bush by far stated many misleading and indeed untrue things. The stuff about creating 1.9 million jobs or something where he had originally promised his tax cuts would bring over 5 million.

The drivel about saying Kerry was for "partial birth" abortions even though seconds earlier Kerry had said the precise opposite and gave a perfectly sound reason why he hadn't voted for the relevant Bill as it stood at the time.

Bush's twisting of the timber company claim to suggest he owned a company when Kerry's point was that under Bush's definition Bush is a small business because he made $84 from this company.

Bush's statement that the world is a safer place - evidence, please?

Bush's statement that they are doing all they can to protect America yet not denying the shocking facts laid out by Kerry as to massive security holes like Chemical plants, Airline holds and port cargo checks (OverlandSailor provides a litany in the War on Terror section). How can it be true that you can be "doing all [you] can to protect the nation" if the above is true? It makes no sense. If he had forcefully rebutted the specific charges with facts of his own, fine, but he simply did not.

Bush's statement that Saddam was a unique threat. Um, he was unique in that he was a fictional threat. He was the least urgent threat facing the nation and he had the weakest terrorist links of all local governments. What was unique? Perhaps the oceans of oil under the sand, its military weakness combined with its central location of the Middle East and neighboring both Israel and Iran? But in Bush's world it was that he "hated America" and had used chemical weapons 20 years ago. Against people in the Middle East. The Duelfer report specifically states that Saddam's main motivations for building up weapons at some point in the future - given the correct conditions - was his hatred of Iran and other local foes.


From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722016.stm

I also noticed his complete absence of denying he has underfunded "No Child Left Behind" - a charge levelled more than once by Kerry last night - nor of his other bait and switch actions Kerry mentioned. You notice too that Bush simply defended the Patriot Act as a piece of legislation when it was not the legislation Kerry was attacking but the implementation of the Act as interpreted by Tom Ridge. He somehow missed this important point and answered like it was the Act under attack. Was this fast and loose or deliberately trying to give the false impression that Kerry was against the Patriot Act?

Just a few examples. Kerry's General "fib" is pretty minor in the scheme of things. Not that it's any more forgivable.

OLS,

As far back as March 18, factcheck.org debunked the $87 billion claim. The version Kerry supported would have rolled back part of the Bush tax cuts. Then we had a barrage of Republican attack ads connecting the no vote on the final bill to body armor for the troops. Conveniently, the fact that Bush sent the troops into Iraq without body armor in the first place seems not to register with the public. Kerry has tried repeatedly to set the record straight. Since Karl Rove has already “captured” this issue, maybe Kerry thinks just saying he misspoke and comparing that to Bush’s dismal record in Iraq a better tactic.

There is a concept in education called “reteaching.” Kerry has retaught, but after a while it’s a head banging matter.

Information below is from www.factcheck.org not as Dick Cheney "misspoke," www.factcheck.com.



<snip>



<snip>

That is hardly "de-bunking" anything, BoF, and quite frankly is hardly an in-depth analysis of the issue. The fact is that Kerry did indeed vote against the $87 Billion supplemental and he voted against it because it didn't increase taxes. In other words, he felt increasing taxes was more important that supporting our troops in Iraq - not a surprising thing given his history concerning our soldiers in battle.

If Factcheck had truly wanted to look into the body armor matter, they could have easily found the explanation for it in the testimony of General Dick Meyers before the Senate Armed Services Committee - I watched that testimony live on C-SPAN. Had they done that they would have found that the newer type armor had just become available and was in production. The DoD wanted to accelerate the production and delivery rate for that armor given in the situation in Iraq and in order to do that they had to get the increased cost for that approved by Congress. Kerry voted NO, pure and simple, he voted NO.

The Republican claim is absolutely accurate.

1. Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)

With regards to who was more believable (played faster with the truth), I will follow the crowd and submit to the polls showing Bush to be more believable.

Who lied? I really can't say anything because I have yet to sit down with the comments vs the facts. But since Bush is more believable, even if he lied more
he is a better liar.

2. How much does it sway your opinion about a candidate when you catch him/her in a lie?

Candidates lie. Actions speak louder then words. I never base my decisions on the words that spew from the mouths of politicans, but the actions they have taken thus far.

I think it is odd to adhere to the words of candidates without acknowledging their actions more so then voting party. To me it makes more sense to vote party then to vote based upon the words of a candidate.

You're correct, it was a vote on a version of the bill with an amendment attached to repeal the tax cut on the "wealthiest" Americans. I called it a proceedural vote, I mis-spoke.

The reason he explaination doesn't register with the public because each time he mentions that he mis-spoke while at a major event or interview where the public is watching he says that he mis-spoke but doesn't bother to follow that statement up with what he really meant. He treated the question that way in the Diane Sawyer interview for example.


He has said on other occasions:

A> He voted for the it when the roll back of the tax cut to the "wealthiest" Americans was attached, and voted against it without the the tax cut because he felt the "wealthiest" Americans should share in the cost.

B> He voted for the giving the President the option to use force because he felt Saddam was a threat, but voted against funding the action because he felt that the President moved too fast, didn't give the inspectors enough time and didn't build international support, so he voted against the funding to show his dissatisfaction with the Presidents handling of the situation.

Now, these answers don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. However, the average undecided American looks at this and says, OK which is it?

When the opposition is attempting to paint you as a man who "flip-flops" and who will say anything to get elected, you have to be consistent in how you address their charges.

Now personally, as someone serving over there at the time, I took exception to Senator Kerry's vote. I would have expected someone who served in Vietnam to know how damaging it can be to politicize war.

However, he has a right to his opinion and an obligation to vote his conscience. I respect that. I just feel that he is handling the issue terribly and is actually feeding into the idea that he only cares about political power and will say and do anything to gain it. I am not so sure he is really like this, but others might see him this way if he can't directly follow up "I mis-spoke" with what he actually meant to say.

As I said in the post you quoted, it was simply friendly advice and that is how I meant it. I even sent it with:

Actually, according to factcheck.org, there was some truth in what Kerry said:



There have been a number of people both in the Bush Administration and in Blair's government that reportedly retired for "family reasons" in the time leading up to and during the invasion of Iraq.


And we have to be clear... Congress did not "vote for the war", they voted to leave the decision up to the President should it come to that. Kerry and Edwards voted specifically to leave the decision up to the President while stating that they also wanted the President to allow for more diplomacy -- something that seemed reasonable as the resolution in question stated that war was to be used as a last resort when diplomacy failed. Once getting the authorization, Bush very quickly made the determination that diplomacy wasn't working and invaded.

As for the $87 billion, one of the reasons members of Congress opposed it was the fact that the Bush administration was unable to account for much of the money already being spent in Iraq:

From the AFP, Saturday, 11-Oct-2003


Some reports had the Bush administration unable to account for almost half of the money spent monthly in Iraq (approximately 1.5 billion dollars a month unaccounted for) at the time he was asking for $87 billion more. Does it seem wise to give the Administration more money when it can't account for the money already being spent?

For someone complaining of depth on the matter, I have yet to see you provide any either, Aquilla. But "depth" allows for that tricky context thing to creep into the issue and we know much the President loves that.

The "context" shows that the President threatened to veto the appropriations bill that had pretty overwhelming bi-partisan support. It wasn't just over his tax cut. And what exactly is wrong with asking a President to show some fiscal responsibility? It was a simple equation, if you want 87 billion in appropriations, roll back 87 billion of your tax cut. Can't have that though, gotta keep "the base" happy. Besides, another president can deal with those pesky deficits, much like the environment.

From Fox News:
The above link is to a letter from the Director of the OMB outlining the reasons why Bush will veto the 87 billion dollar appropriations bill.

The first reason he wanted to Veto was the original appropriations bill actually held the administration to their promise that Iraqi oil would help pay for the reconstruction. Naturally, the first inclination is to make the reconstruction portion a loan and let oil revenues over time pay it back. Can't have that though, that would require making the president honor a promise.

The second is that for some unexplainable reason, the President didn't want to take as much care of his troops as he would appear, wishing to reject a 1.8 billion appropriation for Tricare expansion to account for the number of reservists activated as part of the war,


The final reason is that the bi-partisan bill contained some provisions that would make the Bush administration actually account for his use of the money.

Yeah, actually telling Congress what you're doing with the money in a timely fashion would be inconvenient.

Doc

Ok, Doc, let's add a little context to your claims....



The threat to veto the bill that you cite here is bascially a lobbying effort by the White House to craft legislation along the lines that the President wanted it crafted. The threat of a veto is really about all a President can do in influencing what happens in a conference committee. In this case, it obviously worked and the President got the bill he wanted.




Let's add some more "context" to this claim. At that time, the US was in the process of negotiating with other countries, including France, Germany and Russia who were owed huge amounts of money by Iraq from the days of Saddam Hussein. The US was asking them to forgive all or a part of that debt to allow Iraq to recover economically. As I recall, and I'll have to see if I can find a link to the article (on CNN I think), the US diplomacy along these lines was successful and those nations did indeed forgive a part of the debt they were owed. For the US to have then turned around and "loaned" money to Iraq for re-building would have been the height of hypocrisy. Had President Bush allowed this to happen, I have no doubt the Kerry people would be screaming bloody murder about it.



Those expenditures are not directly related to on-going military operations or relief and reconstruction efforts. That was the purpose of the supplemental request. The VA and TRICARE programs had already been funded in the Defense Appropriations Bill and if it turned out they needed more money, that could be done with a second supplemental for those purposes. Obviously the Bush Administration didn't feel additional funding was necessary at that time for those programs.

And, in the end, the President got the bill he asked for and signed it. And, in the end, Kerry voted NO.

1. Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)

Since spending sometime reading and researching the debate I found the following.

Kerry mispoke:
1. Kerry believes that himself, Bush, and Gibson were the only one who would pay taxes under his plan. How does that work with Kerry's Over sea's accounts? (An off-shore tax shelter. Does Kerry pay taxes for this?
   QUOTE(Kerry @ the Debate)
   There is a tax loophole right now. If you're a company in St. Louis working, trying to make jobs here, there is actually an incentive for you to go away. You get more money, you keep more of your taxes by going abroad...You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've never promised that. I'm not going to, because that would be pandering. You can't.
   
   
   
   
2. Or about the middle class keeping their tax rate while the wealth gets the bill. How does that work when Kerry paid an 12% tax rate, while the Middle Class paid 20% tax rate?
   Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry (this is from the Wall Street Journal where you need a subscription and pay and all but I'll copy a chunk)
   QUOTE
   "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%.
   
   ...
   
   "Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"
   
   
   
3. One that Cheney has pointed out deals with Kerry flip flopping in the debate.
   Text Of Bush-Kerry Debate IIAt the begin he says,
   QUOTE
   KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
   and at the end he says
   QUOTE
   KERRY: And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.
   So it was a threat or it wasn't a threat?
   
   
4. Another thing stems from Kerry's most spoken word: but. Now when you hear some say 'but' what they mean is everything before, forget. Why does Kerry do this? To be on both sides of an issue.
   QUOTE
   The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto, and I was part of that. I know what happened. But this president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen, and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years.
   SO Kerry means, forget that the treaty was flawed, remember Bush didn't fix it. Making it easy for him to say that he knew it was flawed at the same time he would fix it.

Aquilla


Oops, let me get what you are saying. Bush threatened to Veto support for troops if the appropriations bill touched his tax cut. You say this is the White house way of "crafting" legislation. Well, to me it sounds like.... politics. So the President played politics with concern to the troops welfare... is that right?? Isn't this the same thing that the right is some what peeved about with Kerry? Of course I understand , President Bush certainly has an infinite amount of "Get out of Jail free" cards from his loyal followers.

You're oversimplifying here, Aquilla. Yes, a threat of a veto is the final means that the President can use to influence Congress. But to imply he had already reached that endgame is inaccurate. To be honest, I think Congress should have held its ground and called his bluff. He hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation thus far in his term, why start now?

I think you are overestimating here, especially when the loan concept was a bi-partisan effort to begin with. Obviously they didn't see anything wrong with making this appropriation for reconstruction a loan. Maybe, just maybe, they were counting on Iraqi oil revenues to pay for it? That would require holding the President to his word, however.

This was hardly an unrelated pork addendum to the supplemental request. This was (at least in part) for the reservists that were called up to serve and are continuing to do so. The OMB's comments have merit in that its certainly not the same as paying for more bullets or bulldozers but can you deny we have just as much right to complain about Bush's threat to veto this as you do over Kerry's eventual vote against?

Agreed, facts are rather stubborn in that area. But unless you are dealing with children, no votes typically have reasons and facts behind them and currently the Republican Noise Machine has little interest paying attention to those. Why let context get in the way of a good story?

Doc

Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)
Definitely Bush. Here's a great analysis.

It's not really a matter of the most lies to me because face it, they are both politicians. The problem is, is Bush's lies are central to his campaign and how he manages his administration. Kerry's lies are more peripheral and don't nearly have the same impact in terms of forming people's opinions. For example, he stated that the war cost $200 billion when really it's "only" $120 billion on it's way to his figure. He may be wrong now, but in a year he'll be correct. But Bush says, "He said he's going to have a novel health care plan. You know what it is? The federal government is going to run it." when there is not an ounce of truth to it. These are examples of one lie against one lie (although one is not actually a lie), but the "weight" of each is far different.

Kerry really doesn't have to lie. All he needs to do is tell the truth about Bush's record. But he stretches it and he loses credibility in my opinion. On the other hand, Bush has no credibility to lose, so he'll call the color black "white" if it serves his purpose.

Kerry can manage his administration without misleading anyone. Bush can't. It's that simple.

1. Which candidate played faster and looser with the truth tonight? (Give instances of lies if any)

This lie took awhile to surface, but here it is:

In the Second Debate:

The Lie:


What it means:
Kerry did not meet with four out of five UN Security Council Members to talk about Saddam. So when did he do it? Did he do it? Is he pulling our legs?