T Nation

Kerry Demagogues, NYT Factchecks

I don’t know what the internal polls are telling the Kerry camp, but they are getting increasingly shrill and desperate in their arguments – Kerry doesn’t want to talk about his secret plans for everything, but he loves to talk about the Draft, Social Security, and to try to blame the President for flu vaccines (firstly a very minor concern, and secondly not something that one would consider within the Presidential orbit).

His stuff is so bad even the New York Times felt compelled to call him on it – although getting in a few little asides, they did pretty well (see my thread on Flu Vaccines for some thoughts on why we actually are facing a shortage this year).

Kerry Goes Beyond Some of Bush Positions

Published: October 19, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - After weeks of facing attacks that his campaign and outside commentators called distortions, Senator John Kerry has begun criticizing President Bush on Social Security and the draft in a manner that reaches far beyond Mr. Bush’s positions.

Mr. Kerry may also have exaggerated the president’s responsibility for the shortage of flu vaccine.

On Social Security, Mr. Kerry said over the weekend that Mr. Bush planned a “January surprise” that could cost retirees up to 45 percent of their monthly checks. On the draft, Mr. Kerry told The Des Moines Register last week that there was “the great potential of the draft” if Mr. Bush won a second term. And on the vaccine, Mr. Kerry has maintained for days that the president ignored warnings of a shortage.

“As John Kerry loses momentum and slips in the polls,” a spokesman for the Bush campaign, Steve Schmidt, said, “he’s grasping at issues in the headlines and makes a series of false and baseless attacks.”

The truth is that Mr. Bush has promised not to cut the Social Security benefits of current retirees or those nearing retirement age. He said flatly in the debate on Wednesday that he had no plans to reinstate military conscription.

And as for the vaccine shortage, experts say Congress is as much to blame as the president for allowing domestic manufacturers to stop production. In his years in the Senate, Mr. Kerry apparently never addressed the matter, either.

A campaign spokesman, David Wade, said Mr. Kerry had not changed tactics but had simply seized on issues at the top of the news to illustrate that Mr. Bush “refuses to take the blame for anything” and “consistently misleads the American people on important issues.”

Social Security

Mr. Kerry’s accusation on Social Security grew out of an article on Sunday in The New York Times Magazine in which the president was quoted as telling a group of Republican donors at a private meeting last month, “I’m going to come out strong after my swearing-in with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.”

Mr. Schmidt said Mr. Bush had been misquoted and had never used the word “privatization” to describe his policy.

At a church in Columbus, Ohio, on Sunday, Mr. Kerry jumped on the passage. “The president’s privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security is going to be broken,” he said. “Even the president’s own economic advisers say that this’ll blow a $2 trillion hole in Social Security.”

He asserted that the plan could cost retirees “up to $500 a month” that would otherwise be spent “for food, for clothing, for a grandchild.”

For decades, Democrats have found mileage in painting Republicans as threats to Social Security.

Since his 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush has advocated allowing workers to put some of their Social Security tax money into personal retirement accounts that could be invested in the private markets. The theory is that Social Security payments would be reduced but that the shortfall would be more than offset by the increased earnings over the years from the private investments.

Mr. Bush has never endorsed a specific plan and has insisted that benefits for current retirees and people near retirement age would never be reduced.

A policy specialist on Mr. Kerry’s campaign staff, Jason Furman, said Mr. Kerry was relying on a study this year by the Congressional Budget Office of one of three plans developed by a commission that Mr. Bush established in 2001 to study establishing personal accounts under Social Security. This plan was also analyzed this year in the annual Economic Report of the President. Mr. Furman said it was fair for Mr. Kerry to use figures from this plan, even though the president has not embraced it, because it was the only one that staff experts in Congress and the White House had analyzed.

The analyses showed that the plan would cost the government $2 trillion - the number Mr. Kerry used - to keep paying benefits to retirees while part of workers’ taxes went to their personal accounts. The analyses also showed that a 34-year-old now earning the median national income could expect $342 less each month in government retirement benefits. Younger people would have their benefits cut even more.

Mr. Kerry’s implication, though he did not explicitly say it, was that current retirees would have their benefits cut if Mr. Bush won.

The Draft

In the Des Moines interview, Mr. Kerry said, “With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of the draft, because if we go it alone, I don’t know how you do it with the current overextension” of the military.

Everyone agrees that the Army is overextended. But Mr. Bush insisted in the debate on Oct. 8: “We’re not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer Army works.”

In any event, the chances are extremely remote that Congress would approve a general draft.

On Friday, Mike McCurry, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, suggested that Mr. Kerry was “not alleging that there’s a secret plan or anything like that” for the draft but simply mentioning a possibility in answer to a question from the paper.

Even so, a group that supports Mr. Kerry, Win Back Respect, said its advertising in swing states raised prospects restarting the draft.

Flu Vaccine

Over the weekend, Mr. Kerry began ridiculing Mr. Bush about the vaccine shortage, and his campaign began a television spot calling the problem “a George Bush mess.” Yesterday, Mr. Kerry offered his plan, including a government promise to buy excess serum from manufacturers and create a stockpile.

Mr. Kerry is correct about warnings of a shortage over the last year. But like Mr. Bush, he never raised the issue until it erupted. Mr. Bush said in the debate last week that the ultimate cause of the shortage was manufacturers’ fears of lawsuits.

Experts said that was not a main reason to halt production, because a law already offers government protection against such liability.

Mr. Kerry’s camp spread the word yesterday that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee of the Health and Human Services Department had reported the litigation threat was not a cause of the shortage.

That report was dated January 2003. It said, “Current vaccine shortages do not appear to be liability related.” Two sentences before that, it said, “Today, litigation again threatens stability of the vaccine program in the form of class-action lawsuits.”

I’m guessing it’s called politics… and I think we are used to the same tactics coming from the other side as well.

Is there a point to this?


I wouldn’t think that someone who is so familiar with politics would need an explanation…

The shriller and more far-fetched the attacks, the more panic one can infer on the part of the attacker. It would seem, from the polls and from the examples above, that the Kerry campaign thinks some radical action is necessary.

I was going to post this seperately, but this seems a relevant question here. BB do you think if (when) the democrats lose the election they will accept it? or more likely, they’ll never accept it and will create a fiasco like last time (or worse)?

[quote]Berner wrote:
I was going to post this seperately, but this seems a relevant question here. BB do you think if (when) the democrats lose the election they will accept it? or more likely, they’ll never accept it and will create a fiasco like last time (or worse)?[/quote]


If it’s at all close in states that could be decisive in the electoral college, it’s going to be a huge mess. Both sides are already lining up lawyers to file suit and challenge various things – it’s going to be ridiculous, and ugly.

[quote]Berner wrote:
I was going to post this seperately, but this seems a relevant question here. BB do you think if (when) the democrats lose the election they will accept it? or more likely, they’ll never accept it and will create a fiasco like last time (or worse)?[/quote]

They are already creating a fiasco! They can’t accept defeat and are simply poor losers. The FACTS are in, and the last election wasn’t “stolen”, as so many Dems like to claim. They just can’t take it, and they will not ever be able to accept their 2004 defeat either. It’s likely that their hate will fester into the 2008 election and will inadvertantly cost them that election too. A Dem President will not be elected until they are able to get over the close loss of 2000.


See this posting for some details on what to expect:



Here’s an article outlining 5 possible nightmare scenarios:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108339/ ]

Maybe getting the UN to come in and monitor the election is what we need.

Maybe we should pass a law saying that all lawsuits invloving the election must be done pro-bono.

Maybe the republicans should start registering dead people, or paying off new registrants with crack cocaine.

I like this take, from Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online, on the tenor of the Kerry campaign:


Shoot your dog, eat your best cold fried chicken, jam your Xerox machine, grope your wife, give nukes to the Crips and the Bloods, raise taxes on the poor to 110%, give Margaret Cho a two hour nightly “comedy” special, replace vegetables with sand on all high school cafeteria menus and require that all women be handcuffed to their basement radiators until they breed the requisite 3 Aryan children this countries needs. If minority women can’t churn out the good stuff, they stay handcuffed. And – oh yeah – he’ll reinstitute the draft.

Why doesn’t John Kerry say all of these things instead of merely saying Bush will bring back the draft? I mean whenever he’s asked “Why are you saying this when the president has denied it categorically?” He responds, “Well, he also said there were weapons of mass destruction. He has no credibility.”

Never mind the asinine cynicism involved in that Kerry also said he thought there were WMDs (don’t make me go through the list of others who did as well). But if you aren’t bound by evidence and the President’s denials don’t count, why not really cut loose with some scary scenarios. The president will require that all taco meat be replaced with blue cheese. A 500 foot nude statue of Helen Thomas will replace the Washington Monument – that towering symbol of our phallocracy. Puppies will burn, kittens will fly, diapers will chafe – all if George W. Bush is elected.