Another Problem For Kerry

[Annie]

Why doesn't his record mean anything to those who want to vote for him?

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2004/08/boston-herald-says-that-new-bush-ad.html

The Boston Herald says that the new Bush ad slamming Kerry for missing public Intelligence committee meetins and proposing to cut intelligence is absolutely devastating. The Herald calls on Kerry to release records of his attendance at closed Senate Intelligence Committee meetings if he wants to prove that he was active and engaged. Kerry has refused to do so, a clear indication that the records would not help him. I saw Pat Roberts on TV, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee now this weekend and he was asked about Kerry's attendance. Roberts says that he can't give out this information but that he encourages Kerry to sign off on releasing those records. If Roberts, a Republican, says that those records should be out there, it probably is an indication that the official record is not favorable to Kerry. Maybe this will be something that reporters will pressure the Kerry camp on since they seem to have given up on Teresa's financial records, his complete war records, and his medical records.
posted by Betsy Newmark

Here's the linky for the Boston Herald, personally I think they are trying to regain some credibility for having their reporter work for Kerry and write articles on him at the same time:

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=40139

Intel attack ad lands a solid blow
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Tuesday, August 17, 2004

With all the criticism of negative political TV ads - and their potential to backfire - you've got to hand it to the candidate who's willing to put his name on a tough attack ad.

That voters hear George W. Bush's personal approval of a new ad about John Kerry's attendance record at Senate Intelligence Committee meetings actually adds to its punch, perhaps because such backing is so rare this election season.

We don't normally get too worked up about an elected official's attendance record at congressional committee meetings. The real work of legislating often gets done elsewhere. But given the weight Kerry himself has given his congressional experience with intelligence oversight and his stated desire to ``reform the intelligence system,'' his record of missing 76 percent of public Senate Intelligence Committee hearings - and every one in the year after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center - is surely fair game.

Kerry's campaign protests that Bush is distorting his record by not accounting for the senator's attendance at the committee's closed-door sessions. Well, if so, there's an easy way to clear up any misperception. Kerry can authorize the committee to release his attendance records at those private meetings, as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the committee, suggested Sunday on ``Meet the Press.''

Less attention has been focused on the ad's other charge - that Kerry proposed cutting intelligence spending by $6 billion after the first Trade Center attack, a position criticized at the time even by some leading Democrats. That position can harm Kerry's candidacy far more than any absenteeism charge.

Bush's ad paints a damning portrait of Kerry's intelligence record. But even candidate-sponsored negative ads only work if they are backed up by the facts. Kerry's support of intelligence budget cuts is one such fact. It's up to John Kerry [related, bio] to persuasively defend his thinking there. But disputing the ``Senator No-Show'' charge requires more facts on the table. Putting them there is Kerry's responsibility - and his obligation.

 

[dilloduck]

It certainly would be nice to hear some truth come out regarding Kerry however when the dems say "anyone but Bush" they mean it. Having a candidate that lies means nothing to them a la Clintons' behavior. My gut feelings tell me that they are now TOTALLY relying on the media to give them the spin they need to win. The GOP convention and the debates will only "mean" what the media decides that they will mean. Hell with the ads--the GOP would do much better by using the bucks to buy a major network or create one.

 

[Annie]

It certainly would be nice to hear some truth come out regarding Kerry however when the dems say "anyone but Bush" they mean it. Having a candidate that lies means nothing to them a la Clintons' behavior. My gut feelings tell me that they are now TOTALLY relying on the media to give them the spin they need to win. The GOP convention and the debates will only "mean" what the media decides that they will mean. Hell with the ads--the GOP would do much better by using the bucks to buy a major network or create one.

My hope is that Kerry's normal behavior will rub the wrong reporter the wrong way soon. There are too many stories out there, one by Dave Barry, regarding his arrogance and expectation of special privileges. I doubt he'll be able to keep them at bay, eventually.

 

[dilloduck]

My hope is that Kerry's normal behavior will rub the wrong reporter the wrong way soon. There are too many stories out there, one by Dave Barry, regarding his arrogance and expectation of special privlidges. I doubt he'll be able to keep them at bay, eventually.

You go girl ! I hope you're right but as it is now, the ONLY thing keeping Kerry afloat is the protection he receives from the media.

 

[Annie]

You go girl ! I hope you're right but as it is now, the ONLY thing keeping Kerry afloat is the protection he receives from the media.

Here's to hopin'

 

[dilloduck]

Here's to hopin'

reminds me of a joke about a nun but i better not go there

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I agree. Put the cards on the table so we can see what he's got. If he's got nothing to hide, he shouldn't mind.

 

[Annie]

I agree. Put the cards on the table so we can see what he's got. If he's got nothing to hide, he shouldn't mind.

Another Main media, op-ed:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2740155

Aug. 16, 2004

Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?
Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing him same way they did Bush
By LEE CEARNAL

The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.

[...]

As to the truth of this tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.

And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back — as justifiable as it was as an act of war — be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?

To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.

 

[nakedemperor]

Why doesn't his record mean anything to those who want to vote for him?

Thing is, a lot of his supporters (like me), don't necessarily think he has a great record. At all. He's just the least objectionable alternative to Bush that the DNP could produce, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

 

[Annie]

Thing is, a lot of his supporters (like me), don't necessarily think he has a great record. At all. He's just the least objectionable alternative to Bush that the DNP could produce, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

Well that's certainly your right, but be careful what you wish for.

 

[britinusa]

My hope is that Kerry's normal behavior will rub the wrong reporter the wrong way soon. There are too many stories out there, one by Dave Barry, regarding his arrogance and expectation of special privileges. I doubt he'll be able to keep them at bay, eventually.

Yes, Kerry is personally disliked even by his fellow Senate Democrats. It seems his only friend on Capitol Hill is John McCain. Once it becomes clear that Kerry can't win, the media will turn on him with a vengeance. That's why I think Newt Gingrich's prediction - 58-42 for Bush - may be spot on.

 

[007]

I agree. Put the cards on the table so we can see what he's got. If he's got nothing to hide, he shouldn't mind.

That'll be a REEEEAL good thing for the Prez to ask kerry to do.... IN THEIR FIRST DEBATE, AND IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE NATION!!!

 

[Annie]

Yes, Kerry is personally disliked even by his fellow Senate Democrats. It seems his only friend on Capitol Hill is John McCain. Once it becomes clear that Kerry can't win, the media will turn on him with a vengeance. That's why I think Newt Gingrich's prediction - 58-42 for Bush - may be spot on.

Interesting, a professor who uses some model came up with the same results!
I think I posted it a bit ago, the NYT reporter was not happy with it. Well, I looked for it, but couldn't find it. If I do, I'll edit the link in!

Found it!

NYT MAGAZINE

It's pretty close to the 58%
Excerpt:

Bush Landslide (in Theory)!
Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON

Published: August 15, 2004


As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.

My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.

The polls are suggesting a much closer race.

Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.

Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?

It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.

 

[tpahl]

That'll be a REEEEAL good thing for the Prez to ask kerry to do.... IN THEIR FIRST DEBATE, AND IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE NATION!!!

The debates are a joke as they currently stand. I would not count on either of the two 'major' candidates pushing any tough issues in the debates.

 

[Annie]

Seems that Bush may have UNDERCOUNTED the Kerry absence record:

FACTCHECK

EXCERPT:

Bush says Kerry missed 76% of public hearings. He could have missed even more.

August 17, 2004
Modified: August 17, 2004

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.

Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).

Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.

Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry.


Analysis



Kerry often touts his eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a prime qualification for office. The Bush ad takes that on, describing Kerry as a no-show for most of the committee's public meetings. If anything, the ad understates Kerry's lack of attendance.

Bush - Cheney '04 Ad

"Intel"

Announcer: John Kerry promises...

Kerry: I will immediately reform the intelligence system.

Announcer: Oh really...as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings.

In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry was absent for every single one.

That same year he proposed slashing America's intelligence budget by 6 billion dollars.

There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does.

Public Hearings

The Bush ad shows Kerry promising to "immediately reform the intelligence system," then counters with an announcer saying "as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings." As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left the committee.

FactCheck.org examined the official, published records of those hearings. And indeed, Kerry is listed as attending only 11 of those hearings.

Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.

However, the Bush ad's lower figure plays it safe -- giving Kerry credit for attending one hearing for which the record is a bit ambiguous. The record of that hearing, on June 22, 1999, lacks the usual list of the senators and staff members who attended. We checked the full transcript for any sign that Kerry had been there, and found no record of Kerry speaking, or anyone else noting his presence. If Kerry is counted as absent from that hearing as well as the others, he missed nearly 78%. But if he attended and didn't speak, then he would have missed only 37 of the 49, for a no-show rate of 75.5%, which the ad properly rounds up to 76%.

In a rebuttal to the ad, the Kerry camp accused Bush of "fuzzy math and bad stats," saying "They rely only on whether Sen... Kerry made statements in one of a small number of open hearings." That's not true. Records list senators and staff members as being present whether or not they spoke, and -- to repeat -- the 76 percent figure actually gives Kerry credit for attending one hearing for which there's no evidence of his participation.

What About the Closed Meetings?

The Kerry rebuttal also noted that most of the Intelligence Committee meetings are closed and attendance figures for closed meetings aren't public, which is true. But Kerry offered nothing to show that his attendance at closed meetings was better or worse than his attendance at open hearings. He also has passed up a chance to have the full record of his attendance made public.

Over the weekend, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, refused to say how often Kerry had attended closed meetings. But Roberts said Kerry could, if he wished, ask that his attendance at closed meetings be made public. Roberts spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press" Aug 15:

 

[tpahl]

Thing is, a lot of his supporters (like me), don't necessarily think he has a great record. At all. He's just the least objectionable alternative to Bush that the DNP could produce, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

Voting for the least objectionable alternative is not anyway to vote. If you honestly do not want him president, you should find a candidate that you can support more enthusiastically. Otherwise your choices are going to continue to get worse and worse each election. My suggestion is to check out the green or libertarian candidates.

Travis