What does it say about a presidential candidate, his campaign and his party, if upon the completion of the national convention at least two newspapers publish stories loaded with examples of instances when the candidate and his supporters spoke falsehoods about his opponent?
The day after Bush's acceptance speech (for a review see the entry below), The Washington Post and The New York Times each ran articles demonstrating that the Bush campaign had distorted Kerry's record. The Post noted:
"Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements that he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims--such as his votes on military programs--are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign."
For instance, the paper reported, "Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech...but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era."
The Times noted:
"President Bush's acceptance speech last night included assertions about the president's accomplishments and Senator John Kerry's past statements and voting patterns that were at best selective, and in some cases challenged by the historical record."
The Times pointed out that Bush had declared that seniors are now receiving "immediate help" from his Medicare prescription drug measure--even though the legislation doesn't kick in until after 2006 and the new drug discount card is only being used by a small number of seniors at this point. (It is also unclear how much of a discount the card will bring.) The paper also said Bush was wrong when he said of Kerry, "After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them." Kerry voted for Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, and since then he has blasted Bush for not fully financing the plan--which is hardly a call for diluting it.
There were other misrepresentations--or lies--peddled by the propagandists of the Bush campaign, such as the assertion made by Dick Cheney and others that Kerry's position is that the US should only engage in military action approved by the United Nations. To make this charge, they point to a statement Kerry made 30 years ago, after he came back from Vietnam. As a senator, though, he has said no such thing. In fact, he has said the opposite. So when Cheney and other Bush-backers, as part of their effort to depict Kerry as unfit for duty, claim Kerry has said he will always defer to the UN, they are purposefully misrepresenting his stance for political gain.
One question: why did the Post believe the Bush camp's distortions deserved front-page treatment, but the Times buried its piece within its convention section?
I know it's shocking that politicians do not tell the truth about their opponents. But it was Bush who said in 2000 that he was running for president "to restore" honesty and integrity to the Oval Office. Restoring honesty and integrity to the campaign trail--now that's an entirely different matter.
SCHEDULING NOTE: After the GOP convention, I'm taking a break for a few days. See you on Tuesday. In the meantime, discuss and argue among yourselves. And have a good Labor Day. Remember that without labor unions, there would be no Social Security, no minimum wage, no 40-hour work week, no employer-provided health insurance, and one less target for conservatives to bash.
bushlies.com |
