[I actually wrote this up last night, but between experiments with various blogging clients, it vanished softly and silently away. Drat.]
Checking back in with FactCheck, which reviews presidential candidate ads for accuracy.
On the Kerry side, we have a critique of the claim that the Supreme Court is “just one vote away” from outlawing abortion. As the article notes, six of the nine sitting justices on the court have supported the “right to choose” in Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy, who dissented in 5-4 Stenberg v. Carhart (the 2000 decision that threw out Nebraska’s law restricting D&X abortions), went to pains in his separate dissent to support the 1992 Casey decision, which upheld Roe.
Arguably, that means the court is one vote away from banning certain abortion procedures, but it appears to be at least two votes away from allowing the government to ban abortion. Some folks might consider that the same thing, perhaps, and certainly the next president may be able to appoint two or more justices — but arguing that “The Supreme Court is just one vote away from outlawing a woman’s right to choose” seems a bit of an oversimplification.
Speaking of which, we have the most recent Bush ads that once again lambaste Kerry for voting against critical Defense spending.
But this is the oldest trick in the legislative record book — identifying a vote for (or against) a large multi-billion dollar bill as being for or against a particular provision of it. Which, given how such bills tend to grow like Topsy, is also more than a bit of an oversimplification.
- Kerry voted against three DoD funding bills out of the sixteen that have come before him as senator. Arguably, that means he’s voted for such bills thirteen out of sixteen times.
- Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental spending bill last year was not explicitly a vote against body armor for the troops (which was 1/3% of the expenditure), but (as I recall) a vote against writing a “blank check” for the Pentagon.
- Kerry’s campaigning against the AH-46 Apache helicopter in 1984 foreshadowed a future Secretary of Defense who would argue the program should be cut off in 1989 — Dick Cheney, serving under George Bush the Elder.
You can argue the particular wisdom of each of those votes and positions, and the stated reasons for them. But to simply say that the votes per se show Kerry to be weak on defense is as silly a tactic now as it is when it’s used against any other legislator, by either party.
Surely there are enough substantive criticisms that could be made of both sides’ opposition (or, better yet, substantive reasons to support the candidates themselves) that these sorts of cheap rhetorical tricks and distortions are unnecessary.
Dave, Americans have a cultural inability to deal with substance. They tend to Homer out and start to drool when confronted with even the whiff of substance.
Kind of like when Gore pointed out in the debates that W’s budget/tax cutting plans were fuzzy math that would lead to record deficits. People heard tax cuts, and it was over.
It’s all about spin, loving the spin we’re in. It’s Leo Strauss’ world, we just live in it.
I think that’s a cultural stereotype, Stan. It has, perhaps, a kernel of truth in it, but only that. But I agree that it’s the sort of stereotype that ads like this assume is true.
I think Americans tend to pick and choose which substance that want to accept. Our society, for the most part, is very self centered. I think the mentality is “Does it effect me in some way?” If yes, then I’ll care. If no, then let the neighbour deal with it.
Is that solely an American mentality?