BY DAN
KENNEDY
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
For information on Dan Kennedy's book, Little People: Learning to
See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes (Rodale, October 2003),
click
here.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
YOU COULD LOOK IT UP. SO WHY
DIDN'T THE TIMES? As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could
look it up." Incredibly, the big-time national political reporters
who help to define the presidential campaign all too often couldn't
be bothered.
Today's example: the New York
Times. A front-page
story today by Richard
Stevenson and Jodi Wilgoren on George W. Bush's defense of his Iraq
policy claims that John Kerry has changed his explanation for why he
voted against $87 billion in reconstruction money for Iraq and
Afghanistan last year. They write:
In an apparent response to
Mr. Cheney, Mr. Kerry also said he was "proud" that he and Mr.
Edwards had voted against the administration's request for $87
billion to help finance military and reconstruction efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan because "we knew the policy had to be
changed." That was a new explanation by Mr. Kerry for a vote
that has been a point of much contention during the
campaign.
...
At the fund-raiser, Mr. Kerry
also attacked the administration as unnecessarily sending young
soldiers into harm's way, and he spoke about the votes he and Mr.
Edwards cast last fall against the $87 billion.
"I'm proud to say that John
joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the
policy had to be changed, we had to get it right, we needed other
countries involved, we needed to reach out to our allies, we
needed to put other boots on the ground," Mr. Kerry
said.
Earlier, Mr. Kerry had said
he voted against the bill because he thought the war and
reconstruction should be financed by rolling back part of the Bush
administration's tax cuts. That, he explained, was why he had
voted for the $87 billion appropriation when it included an
amendment demanding that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
be reversed, then against it once that provision was stripped.
His explanation has been mocked as a flip-flop by
Republicans and featured in their campaign
commercials.
So there you have it: Republican
talking points dressed up and trotted out as serious political
analysis. Kerry's a flip-flopper! But wait - here is what
Kerry said at a Democratic debate on October 26 of last year,
according to the Boston Globe's Patrick Healy and Anne
Kornblut:
Senator John F. Kerry of
Massachusetts, who has suffered intense criticism for his
seemingly ambiguous position on Iraq, sought to present a clear
explanation for his decision to authorize military force but later
oppose the $87 billion proposal to pay for the war's aftermath.
"It is absolutely consistent, because what I voted for was to
hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but to do it right," Kerry said.
"This president has done it wrong every step of the way." He
ridiculed Bush's efforts to internationalize the war as a
"fraudulent coalition."
And check out what Noelle Straub
wrote in the Boston Herald last October 17:
Presidential hopeful Sen.
John F. Kerry said he opposed the funding because he believes
Bush has not put forward an adequate plan to protect troops and
bring in other nations to help and because the money comes at
the expense of domestic priorities.
"We need to stand up to this
president," Kerry (D-Mass.) said. "They've already proven they
can't be trusted, they've already proven that they're willing to
mislead, and this particular plan for $87 billion is top down,
starting with Halliburton and the other great friends of the
president."
Is it true that Kerry supported an
amendment to fund the $87 billion by rolling back tax cuts for the
rich? Yes. But the Times tag team of Stevenson and Wilgoren
makes it sound like that was Kerry's only reason for opposing
the $87 billion.
Kerry deserves to be whacked for
failing to explain himself clearly, and for that ridiculous clip in
which he says that he actually voted for the $87 billion before he
voted against it. But Stevenson and Wilgoren are taking dictation
from the Bush-Cheney campaign, claiming that Kerry has flip-flopped
on his reasons for opposing the $87 billion even though he's actually
been a model of consistency.
By the way, Media Log thinks Kerry
got it wrong twice: he should have voted against authorizing Bush to
go to war, but then he should have voted in favor of the $87 billion.
But this isn't about anyone's opinion - this is about getting it
right.
posted at 10:50 AM |
comment or permalink
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
