Thursday, October 14, 2004

Fox News' Cameron Creates New Fiction Serving as Fact Checker

Many observers suggested that Carl Cameron, Fox News' chief political correspondent, should have been suspended after he wrote a fake and derisive news story about John Kerry for Fox News' web site.

Officially, Cameron was reprimanded. In truth, it's business as usual for Fox. No suspension. No removal from covering the campaign. A slap on the wrist and carry on, my conservative son.

Not only was Cameron a key part of last night's debate coverage for Fox -- he served the role of fact checker! What's worse, he misrepresented the facts -- surprise, surprise -- with regard to the very same John Kerry.

The topic was the back-and-forth during the debate about how many pieces of legislation John Kerry had written and had passed by Congress.

Bush said: "He introduced some 300 bills, and he's passed five."

Kerry said: I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personal written. And in addition to that, they're not always under my name, there is amendments on certain bills."

So there's the debate: Did Kerry pass five bills, or 56? Seems like something that would be easy to fact-check, right?

The Washington Post, in July, 2003, citing an Associated Press examination, said Kerry was the lead sponsor on eight bills that became law. But "Kerry sponsored 56 bills and resolutions that passed the Senate, but did not necessarily become law."

In other words, Kerry was right. Bush was wrong.

But how did fiction writer Cameron see things?

From the Fox News transcript:

CAMERON: And the Kerry camp does not dispute that, five that made it to a president's desk and were signed; whereas Senator Kerry argues that that 56 was legislation that he wrote or cosponsored or was involved in over the course of his career --

HUME: Well, he said "personally wrote."

CAMERON: -- but did not --

HUME: He said "personally wrote."

CAMERON: Well, that -- he co-sponsored. He did indeed. That's not entirely accurate. Some of them were bills that he cosponsored or worked with, and by putting his name on it -- in legislative parlance, being a cosponsor does not necessarily mean that one is a principal in the writing of the legislation, but one who has joined on it.


So Cameron creates more fiction. By substituting "wrote" for "wrote or co-sponsored or was involved in," Cameron turns Bush into a truth-teller, and Kerry into a shady, do-nothing Senator.

So again, ask yourselves, what is Carl Cameron doing covering the presidential campaign for Fox News? Shouldn't it be clear that either his bias toward the President has clouded his objectivity, or that he's an incompetent reporter?

Frankly, anyone this incompetent -- conservative or liberal, correspondent or anchor -- deserves to be suspended, demoted or perhaps dumped. My boss wouldn't tolerate such reckless behavior from me -- because to do so would be to allow our newsletters' credibility to be questioned.

Why should the American people tolerate anything less?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess its a good thing that not one human being will be swayed by cameron on this topic. Maybe he is an idiot. But lest be clear here. BUsh said five and didnt clarify whether he meant passed the senate or passed into law. So it is 5 vs. 8 or 5 vs. 56, depending on how it was meant. The 300 number is the one that i wonder about because it paints him as someone who is unable to get his viewpoint passed. So what are we saying? that 56 bills were Kerrys, 8 passed into law and the rest were vetoed by the pres? still not clear to me.

There were so many innacuracies in these debates from both sides it is pathetic. I am glad it is over. My take on the debates:
(ranking 1-10, 10 the best)

Debate 1: Kerry 8.5, Bush 2 Result: Kerry kicked ass

VP Debate: Cheney 7, Edwards 6 Cheney wins by small margin; would have done better had he not misrepresented

Debate 2: Kerry 7.5, Bush 6 Result: Bush did better but Kerry was very good.

Debate 3: Bush 7, Kerry 6 Result: Bush did well, Kerry not as well and gratuitous comment about Cheneys daughter was weird

Overall, the first debate put Kerry on the map and made this a close race. The other two proved Bush can hold his own. That is the only impact of the debates, period. So, i think we are in a neck in neck race now and I dont think there are many undecided voters really left---now it is trying to make sure everyone gets out and votes. I think Bush was playing to his base last night more than undecided voters. I think bringing up of cheneys daughter, both in the VP and last night debates, was clearly done to try to piss off the conservative base in some fashion. It serves no other purpose and i believe the dems would have been better served not bringing it up.

6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to offer my rebuttals to the last blogger.
Polls as of this morning still show 6% of undecided voters, more than enough to turn this election.
I discount most of these polls anyway because I've read that most of them don't factor in first time voters and these are the voters who will be pulling the lever for Kerry.
I disagree that Bush won the third debate by even one point. The individual obviously didn't see the same debate I saw. On style, Bush stammered at almost every sentence, he was clearly nervous. On substance, he was unable to effectively counter most of the criticism Kerry aimed of his policies with anything of substance. As an example, when Kerry attempted to provide solutions to the nation's ills, the only retort from Bush was "he's more liberal" than Senator Kennedy. So much for substance. People are so concerned with the authenticity of what Kerry offers that they cannot recognize that Bush in the debate offered no alternative.
Kerry slaughtered Bush in the third debate. Most polls reflect this. And one other thing, most fact-checking at the end of the four debates (except for perhaps the Fox-brand Cameron style discussed above) clearly show Bush/Cheney distortions/lies not only to be significantly more in number than Kerry/Edwards, but to be of a more severe level.
Bush really has no record to run on so he's resorted to a desparate tactic of painting Kerry as a big-government spending liberal. (Never mind that the experts say Bush's plans -- whatever they are -- would cost the same $1.6 trillion as Kerry's, and that Bush's policies are mostly a retread of the same ones he attempted but failed to enact since 2000).
I am also aghast at Bush's plain misrepresentations of Kerry's plans on the campaign trail since Wednesday night. As an example, Bush continues to refer Kerry's healthcare plan as big government taking over the citizens' healthcare despite the fact that Kerry during the debate and everyone else who's looked at made it clear that this is not the case at all. I have also seen the Bush comments about Kerry's healthcare plan in newsstories without permitting any rebuttal from the Kerry camp.
And then there's this business of the last blogger being upset by Kerry's comment regarding Cheney's lesbian daughter. Why is this even an issue? When Edwards said it during the first debate, Cheney thanked him for being sensitive. I could go on but will save space. I sincerely doubt a single voter would be swayed either way by this big media created non-issue, non-news and non-event.
Maybe instead our attention should be focused on why we are engaged in a War that has overwhelmingly been shown by the facts as well as world opinion to be unnecessary and a catalyst behind fueling more terrorism. If a Democrat were president, it would be headline news each day.
In my mind, Bush has accomplished almost nothing that would warrant allowing him another four years. When the CEO brings a company down financially into the hole partially due to engaging it in frivolous battles, it is time to throw the CEO out the door. So it must be with Bush.
Kerry has more than offered himself as a more than reasonable alternative and his policies, as David has pointed out in a past blog, are likely more in line with what Americas would support -- if they were being communicated to them correctly.
On that note, if the majority of Americans were able to see through the Bush fog of lies and distortions, I believe they would share in that opinion.
I hope Nov. 2 proves that the majority of the American public won't allow themselves to be fooled into electing another devastating even catastrophic four years under Bush.

11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SOme comments to the comments:

a) not upset about the gay comment. really dont care. just feel that if it was not intentionally designed to piss off the conservative right, then it was utterly stupid to raise. Clearly it was to upset the conserv base, which it has--otherwise it wouldnt have been brought up in both debates. Personally i think it was stupid, and unnecessary, but the overreaction to it is even more annoying.

b) agree that bush and team have distorted a ton of what kerry has tried to say. same in reverse and i will give you that bush has been worse. looking only at the campaigns of course and not 527s etc.... welcome to US politics 2004.

c) most i talk to (mostly kerry supporters as i am likely to be as well) watched the debate i watched. all felt bush had his best and kerry his worst performance. not to suggest kerry was awful but bush was better than either of the first two. i believe it was close and i give the edge to bush because i believe he connected more with the viewer in the last debate. But to say he got slaughtered...well i cant comment there. just dont agree.

d) i agree that a ceo in this position would be in a position to be fired. even if in the middle of a merger but that would clearly be an issue (the only metaphor for a war i can think of although war is much more severe). but let me put it this way. if i owned stock in such a company and the replacement for the ceo was kerry, i would sell the stock. bush has not done a good job; its too bad this is the best the dems could muster. this is the only thing that makes the voting decision difficult.

e) polls mean crap unless it is the electoral vote we are talking about. and even then... i believe many of the undecideds are not truly undecided-they lean one way or another but it isnt coming out. in certain states, a few votes can obviously make a difference (not my state as my vote doesnt truly count) and the "undecided" matter there i guess. but i think that it is probably more important that each candidate make sure to get their base to vote. there are far more of non voting base democrats and republicans out there than undecideds at this point.

again, i hope it doesnt happen but i fear it will: the election will come down to one state and it will be close there as well. cant wait for it to end.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well unfortunately, we cannot sell the stock so we must choose between the proven incompetent or the much more promising candidate.
I disagree that Kerry is a poor choice from the Democrats.
I think it's a shame that Kerry has failed to highlight his legislative record including realms of impressive legislation in which he played an integral role in drafting or passing involving healthcare, the environment, the economy and national security.
Besides, it should be obvious to anyone that if Kerry indeed was such a nondescript senator then how did he manage to get elected for consecutive terms. Are the Massachusetts residents stupid? I think not.
Of course, Kerry by burying his record has left himself wide open to attacks from Bush. But Kerry is likely wise enough to know that it would be all too easy for most any opponent to distort and make spurrious generalizations about the record of ANY senator, so why bother.
Bush should look in the mirror before accusing anyone of an undistinguished record.
Why is the American public largely blind to Bush failures? Are Republicans so keen on staying in power that they will tolerate even the most fumbling and deceptive leadership since Nixon.
I read today that the deficit is the largest it has ever been (even in adjusted dollars) in U.S. history while the Bush Administration policies are in large part responsible! In a normal election year, THIS ALONE WOULD BE ENOUGH TO BOOT AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT OUT OF OFFICE.
But, of course, this is no normal election year because of 9-11, which Bush has shown a real ability in knowing how to exploit to his fullest advantage. He doesn't even deserve this dubious honor.
I believe Kerry will win this election unless the majority of the American public stubbornly refuses to let go of the colossal myth that Bush is the stronger candidate to protect the country from terrorists.
Again: The idea that Bush is the stronger candidate to protect the U.S. is a MYTH created by Bush administration and supporters. A MYTH.
The reason Kerry IS the real deal would require another blog comment. I will only say here that the world polls coming out over the past week (restricted to the back pages of newspapers)clearly show that the majority of the world hates and distrust Bush, and would overwhelmingly prefer Kerry in command.
This fact lends much credibility to Kerry's claim that he would be the MUCH STRONGER CANDIDATE to rebuild that critical global unity necessary to share intelligence, ward off terrorists, end the Iraq conflict, and bring world Peace.
I will conclude with a strong belief that if Bush does win, the country can look forward to four years of:
A. Widespread recession and unemployment.
B. A Widening rift between the rich and the poor.
C. More children in poverty and unable to go to school or college.
D. No improvement at all in the number of citizens who obtain healthcare.
E. Increasing corporate dominance of society.
F. The gradual elimination of most of the remaining environmental controls.
G. Enhanced terrorism risk -- if not actual attacks God forbid -- in the U.S. and globally.
H. Another attempt by the Bush Administration to engage the U.S. in a second preemptive war.
I. A U.S. military stretched so thin to the point of impotency. Bush leaning towards a draft.
J. An inability of the U.S. to get out of the Iraq war.
K. Loss of U.S. credibility abroad, causing U.S. citizens abroad to face unprecedented risk.
L. The continual deflation of the U.S. dollar overseas.
M. And ultimately, the American public rising up and calling on both Democrats and Republicans alike to commence hearings to impeach Bush.

Need I say more...

5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you on one item for sure. If there were no 9-11 and no terror war, Bush would have no chance. But, to be frank, IF the queen had balls, she'd be the king. 9-11 happened and yes, Bush artfully uses it.

The America you describe under Bush for the next term makes me think maybe i should move somewhere better, like Iraq. America will still be the beautiful, no matter which guy leads it. The president does not have control over as much as you imply here-no president. Not defending Bush as he has not done a good job. But being realistic.

6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, let me sum up one of the prior commentors position. Bush is evil, Republicans are evil, and Kerry is the second coming. Not at all surprising that you thought Kerry slaughtered Bush.

In re. the Kerry and Edwards comments about Cheney's daughter. The fact is that the VP did not bring up his daughter in the debate, nor did the President. Edwards, in his first sentence responding to the question, brought the topic up. Cheney did thank him, but if you watched it, he was clearly not comfortable addressing the topic in that forum, declined any further follow up, and immediately went on to the next question. As for Kerry, the inclusion of the reference was unresponsive to the question, and showed incredible hubris where he put himself in a position to speak for her. Basically, there was no reason for either one of them to broach the subject, yet both did, within the first sentence of their response. That is too coincidental in today's scripted politics to be a coincidence, especially in their support of same afterwards. Edwards wife's comments about the Cheney family being ashamed of their daughter were fucking reprehensible.

I hardly see how you show that Cameron was not accurate in his evaluation. It is true that only 5 bills that Kerry sponsored in twenty years were signed into law. Bills that pass one house, or both houses, that are not signed into law are not of any consequence.

11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The above blogger has allowed himself to get blinded, duped and swept away by Bush spin.
See below for the real story behind Kerry writing or passing only "five" laws.
(Myth No. 2, Kerry has an undistinguished record in the Senate).

"Kerry has few if any laws that bear his name. But neither do many other influential senators, because most bills are folded into other legislation and put in final form by committees, whose senior members are usually identified as sponsors. Kerry is a senior member of the foreign relations, finance and commerce committees but has chaired only the small-business committee -- a far less prestigious panel than the others -- for a brief period."

This was plucked off a wirestory about a non-partisan study of Kerry's senate record. I have read all this before but wanted to submit some documented proof.
The report also raises some other interesting observations including: Kerry's past stand on defense systems legislation could be spun either way to show either a strength or a weakness in this area, and that ANY senator who has spent 20 years in the Senate would have a legislative record providing ample fodder for "creative distortion."
Isn't that exactly what the Bushies have been doing.
It's too bad that many like the above blogger have sucked it up hook, line and sinker.
Again Myth No. 2. Kerry has an undistinguished record in the Senate. I believe any reasonably sane, objective person who took the time to actually study Kerry's legislative record, instead of listening to Bush total bull-- spin or watching total bull-- FoxNews, would come away with a favorable opinion of what this man has accomplished in 20 years.

It's too bad that Kerry is forced to waste so much time and energy this campaign season defending himself against Bush Bull-- instead of addressing the issues that really matter.

10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush and Bush-sheep like Cameron are grasping at straws in an attempt to find something wrong with Kerry's senate history. It's a mere smokescreen to disguise Bush's own pathetic record. Period.
To set the record straight, Kerry sponsored 56 bills that passed the Senate that he had individually written. He voted on a total of 6,000 bills. He was the leading sponsor of eight (not five) bills that actually became law. But I agree with the finding above that the true number of laws is clouded because many more actually passed by committees while Kerry was an active senior member.
Two other observations:
I am amazed at the number of people I talk to who counter the argument that Bush diverted from the true enemy Afghanistan when he attacked Iraq with: "well, wouldn't you say then that the country ignored the true enemy of Germany when we went after Japan."
I don't even believe it is worthy of an explanation as to why that argument is completely preposterous. A pre-school toddler could jump holes through it. Comparing the situation in World War II to the current situation in Iraq is like comparing apples to walnuts.
I find it curious that the mainstream media appears to have given short-shrift to the news this week of a new survey of people in Iraq. 75%, I repeat, seventy-five percent of the Iraq people believe it was wrong for the U.S. to attack the country for Sadaam or any reason.
It completely throws into question Bush Administration long-standing argument that the Iraqis overwhelmingly support us there. This news should be front and center, period. Who cares if it is negative to Bush during his reelection bid. Who cares if it might (scream) appear non-objective.
After all, it is us, the American people, who are paying for this war. It is the many fighting men and women who are making the ultimate sacrifice, if not spending the rest of their lives with a missing limb.
It is certainly not Bush, his croonies or his Administration who are feeling any pain from their fiasco.

1:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the above conservative who says it's unclear how Cameron wronged Kerry -- read the bolded text. Cameron clearly changed the description of what Kerry did to make Kerry sound like a liar.

You may find such things insignificant, but don't play dumb. Cameron either has a bias against Kerry, or he's a crappy reporter.

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David hit the nail on the head. Cameron did wrong Kerry, but he is only one party in the GOP conspiracy to distort Kerry's Senate record, as was pointed out in the last several posting.
After the demonstrated biased, Cameron has no business covering the Kerry campaign. There are several other reporters who are equally biased and still covering the election, but, unlike Cameron, have not been caught with their pants down. The public doesn't appear to notice
Here's the bottom line: It is unfortunate that Kerry might lose this election only because GOP sympathizers like Cameron has gotten away with forwarding such complete falsehoods on his Senate record (among other things). Kerry could lose this election based on a lie.

I share the opinion that if the public were allowed to hear the truth, the majority would put him in office. The media is allowing the Republicans to get away with unchallenged distortions against Kerry, because they have to fill the Bush side of the column with something. They have to allow Bush equal airtime.
And the media/Republicans certainly couldn't instead use this space to defend Bush's "accomplishments" these past four years.

10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone who's interested:
Below is a link to a newsstory from ABC News citing Bush's "egregious" distortions of Kerry's positions in a recent campaign ad. To me it is a representative example of how Bush campaign plays dirty and unfair in trying to dupe uninformed voters (most of them).
I still have not heard of anywhere near the same level of distortions in Kerry's ads. But if someone can find a misrepresentation in a Kerry campaign commercial equally egregious as those of Bush, let me know.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, someone explain to me how this is a strong senatorial record.....i guess i understand why JK has focused on everything from his 4 months in vietnam to cheney's daughters sex life while ignoring his post war activities speaking out against atrocities and his supposed strong senate record. PLEASE LET THE DEMOCRATS FIND A BETTER CANDIDATE!

Just How Many Bills Has Kerry Passed?
Bush said Kerry passed five bills. Kerry said he's passed 56. Who's right? That depends on the definition of "passed" and "bills."

October 15, 2004
Modified: October 16, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version


At the final presidential debate, Bush said Kerry had passed only five bills during his career, and Kerry said he had passed 56. Actually, we found eleven measures authored by Kerry have been signed into law, including a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991.

Bush counted only measures technically defined as "bills," leaving out four "joint resolutions" that also have the force of law, and he also omitted two laws whose House versions were adopted in a form nearly identical to Senate versions authored by Kerry.

When Kerry said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written" he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.


During the Oct. 13 debate in Tempe, AZ, Bush and Kerry contradicted each other on the number of bills Kerry has passed. Both can't be right, so we asked each campaign for their list of specific bills, and we took a look. What we found is that both men were playing word games.

Passed How Many Bills?

Bush: He introduced some 300 bills and he's passed five.

Kerry: Once again, the president is misleading America. I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written and, in addition to that, and not always under my name, there is (sic) amendments on certain bills.
Bush: "passed five"

When Bush said Kerry "passed five" bills, he was counting five bills Kerry authored that passed the Senate, the House, were signed by the president, and became law.

That's technically accurate but omits six other pieces of Kerry legislation that have become law.

The Bush campaign's backup lists five bills, which we verified:

S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming “to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.” (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects “to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America’s coastal resources.” (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
The Bush campaign left out two bills authored by Kerry which passed the Senate and later became law in a slightly different form approved by the House, under the same titles and mostly same substance. (This occurs when House and Senate versions differ so slightly that one house adopts the other's version rather than go to the trouble of a House-Senate conference to work out a compromise.) The citations were provided by the Kerry campaign, and we verified them:

H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
In a related article in January we quoted an Associated Press article that turned up only eight laws that bear Kerry's name. The AP's count omits these two House measures which technically don't bear Kerry's name and a private law (S.423) granting a visa and permanent residency to Kil Joon Yu Callahan that we are including in our count of 11.

We've also included -- as did The AP -- four "joint resolutions" that are not technically "bills" but which have the same force when passed by both houses and are signed into law by the president. All four created national events:

S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 – Oct. 28, 1989 “World Population Awareness Week.” (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew “World Population Awareness Week” for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 “Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.” (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 “National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)
Kerry: "passed 56"

Kerry counted all measures he wrote that were approved by the Senate. While Bush defined “bills” in the strictest sense, Kerry included bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions with no force of law, and even simple Senate resolutions that aren't even considered by the House. Kerry would have been more accurate to say he wrote 56 "measures" that passed the Senate, including 11 that became law. (Kerry's total of 56 does not include the private law.)

Padding the Numbers

Of Kerry's total, 24 were concurrent resolutions or simple Senate resolutions that had no chance of becoming law. Some examples.

S.Res.123: To change the name of the Committee on Small Business to the "Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship." (2001)
S.Res.133: To make May 21, 1991 “National Land Trust Appreciation Day.” (1991)
S.Res.144: To encourage the European Community to vote to ban driftnets for all European Community fishing fleets. (1991 )
S.Res.216: Honoring Milton D. Stewart for his leadership and service at the Small Business Administration. (2002)
S.Con.Res.26: Calling for the United States to support a new agreement providing for a ban on commercial mining of minerals in Antarctica. (1991)
Kerry's total also includes 10 Senate-passed bills that would have done nothing more than grant waivers to specific foreign-built vessels to transport cargo or people along the US coastline despite a 1920 law requiring that only US-built vessels be allowed to operate between US ports. Because there were 10 different vessels, Kerry introduced 10 separate bills. All died in the House.


2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess we are to assume Cameron knew all that when he made his bogus comments?

The point of the original item was that Cameron has clearly shown a bias, and as a result, perhaps should not be used in covering the campaign.

The above post is suggesting, I suppose, that Kerry has not had a very distinguished record in the Senate -- based solely on the bills he was able to get into law.

But is that all that can guide voters? Couldn't Kerry get some credit for work on things like the BCCI scandal and the effort with McCain to figure out what happened to the Vietnam POWs? Or should we suggest that doesn't matter?

4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing to me. Half the people on this site seem convinced that Kerry would win in a landslide if the media would spin the story slightly differently. You think the brainwashed public are blind to the truth. I put to you here that you are in fact blind to the truth. The media clearly has an impact on everything in public life. That said, it is ridiculous to suggest that a basically even race is so far skewed by the media to result in what otherwise would be a landslide. The blind preaching to the blind. Wake up. Like him or hate him, approx half of America likes Bush better for president than Kerry. This is no landslide, not because of media but because of how divided America is these days. Half the arguments here by obviously intelligent people are so colored by liberal bias (Bush can do no right, even by accident according to this site) as to make the arguments themselves seem unimportant.

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the above analysis is great but doesn't really prove anything: Did Kerry draft 5 bills or 12 bills that passed into law? Did he write another 50 that died in the House? blah...blah...blah.
I'm still not convinced anyone is accounting for the many bills/laws Kerry worked on in committees that may or may not have included his name as a sponsor.
And a senator does more than write bills all day. We aren't hearing about all the important legislation Kerry championed in committees or on the Senate floor, which resulted in swaying many members of congress towards a favorable vote.
Secondly, another critical issue that's not being looked at is exactly whose record is Kerry's being compared too?
The buzz in Washington when Kerry first ran for the nomination was that his record was just as distinguised, if not more so, than most any senior member of Congress.
Don't tell me that Kerry is a unaccomplished Senator without providing some sort of criteria for what kind of record makes for an accomplished senator.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, what does a senator have to do to get any respect? Does he have to draft a successful amendment to the constitution? Does he have to be another "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?"
Then there's the Republican-bellowed smoke about Kerry having long ago spoken the truth about the U.S. military in Vietnam.
I think most Americans, except for a few disgruntled veterans, thought Kerry's past actions displayed heroism before Republicans attached their negative spin.
Have Kerry's actions in bringing home POWs been forgotten?
Although it is true many Vietnam vets resent Kerry, I read a moving news article today about at least one vet who said he was going to vote for Kerry because his efforts contributed to ending that war early, and "keeping many names off the Wall" in Washington, D.C. listing U.S. casulaties from that war.
It is vastly hypocritical for Bushies to question Kerry's record when their man took actions to stay out of the conflict.

6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with Cameron. I am talking about all the postings on here about how distorted Kerry's record has been portrayed by the media and about how much he has done "if you just do the work to try to find out his record." I added the info above about Kerry's record simply to make the point that neither side is anywhere close to accurate in what they say or how they portray themselves. It is all spun by both sides. So, dont tell me how Bush completely distorted Kerry's record blah, blah..... Personally, I am sure Kerry has done some good things in the Senate. He chose not to "run" on those things. He chose to run on Vietnam and "I am not Bush." And he may win based on that which is okay with me simply because i agree with him on social issues. But I am downright annoyed by the absolutely one-sided OPINIONS listed here as fact. Elections are not truth telling exercises by either side. They are sales pitches, simple as that. If you dont think that is the truth, then someone tell me how you get the internet from inside the bubble you live in.

10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I respect the above posting, but think the blogger "distorted" the point of my argument above.
I don't believe it is one-sided to point out the Bush Administrations distortions of Kerry's record
have been on on a higher and more severe plane than those of Kerry. This is because it has not been as great a stretch to criticize Bush's four years of errors (detailed in a recent NYT editorial) and Bush breaking his 2000 campaign promise through dragging the country from the center to the far Right, than it has been to chastise a decorated Vietnam Vet and a 20-year record of public service in the Senate.
That is my point period. That much factual information indeed suggests that Bush's distortions have been far worse as a result of the added baggage of defending an objectively found poor four-year record.
I do acknowledge, however, in recent weeks only, Kerry has been beginning to unfairly distort Bush policies on Social Security and the draft issue. A sad commentary that he had to resort to Bush dirty game-playing to have an equal chance in this election.

10:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares