Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you really mean to say that, in spite of the actual numbers showing that Kerry's assertions are out-and-out untrue, you'll continue to believe them because he's "your guy"?

You're right- there's no point.

Oh please. The numbers can be "massaged" to suit anyone's purposes. I have seen ACTUAL numbers showing his assertions to be true, and depending upon which factors one uses, you come out with different results.

I'll give you an example: Bush says Kerry voted to raise taxes 600 times (or some big number, I confess I don't remember, but I may even look it up for you), which, if you count all the procedural votes, is "true". However, if you're only counting "enacting" votes, the number goes down precipitously (like, by 75%).

This is only one in a long, long, long list of possible manipulations of "facts".

Please don't try to tell me this is news to you.


ETMakeMoreConcise: What Ty said.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not 1960. It is 2004. The major reason why they feel threatened is because the DEMs have been stroking the unsubstantiated claim of voter intimidation from 2004. There was a complete justice department investigation of this right after the 2004 election. They found NO EVIDENCE of voter intimidation or suppression. But facts don't matter in this country anymore. We have truly become a nation of spin.

What? An investigation of R activities by Ashcroft's Justice Dept. found no evidence of wrongdoing?!

Your sources suck (see how easy that is, dtb?).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Define "substantiate," because the allegation in Nevada came from an employee who saw the registrations being destroyed, not from Dems who see the boogey man everywhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

I meant that the DEM website does not substantiate them. I am familiar with the Nevada situation. The claim on the other side is that this guy is making it up, and the company has signed affidavits by 2 of his supervisors attesting under oath to that assertion. Who knows what the real story is, but perhaps this is one of those "preemptive strikes" that the DEMs laid out in the memo.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
Oh please. The numbers can be "massaged" to suit anyone's purposes. I have seen ACTUAL numbers showing his assertions to be true, and depending upon which factors one uses, you come out with different results.

I'll give you an example: Bush says Kerry voted to raise taxes 600 times (or some big number, I confess I don't remember, but I may even look it up for you), which, if you count all the procedural votes, is "true". However, if you're only counting "enacting" votes, the number goes down precipitously (like, by 75%).

This is only one in a long, long, long list of possible manipulations of "facts".

Please don't try to tell me this is news to you.


ETMakeMoreConcise: What Ty said.

POF - he said 98 times. Not sure substantively it matters whether its 98 or 600. It's still a lot.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What? An investigation of R activities by Ashcroft's Justice Dept. found no evidence of wrongdoing?!

Your sources suck (see how easy that is, dtb?).

How bout this from the AG: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/dojfl060702.html

4. Alleged Intimidation of Election Officials in Miami-Dade County
During the Recount

In November 2000 the Voting Section received allegations that a crowd
of persons had attempted to intimidate election officials on the canvassing
board of Miami-Dade County during the presidential vote recount.
Specifically it was alleged that, on November 22, 2000, this group's
activities at the county courthouse, while the recount was ongoing,
intimidated the canvassing board into abandoning the recount. Career
attorneys investigated numerous accounts of events of that day and, based
on that review, concluded that no federal voting rights laws enforced by
the Division had been violated.

5. Allegations of Police Intimidation of Minority Voters in the Tampa
Area

Following Election Day, the Voting Section received allegations that
local law enforcement officials in Hillsborough County, Florida, had
attempted to deter voter turnout in Progress Village, a small,
predominantly African-American residential subdivision about 15 miles east
of Tampa. Specifically, the NAACP National Voter Project alleged that
Hillsborough County Sheriff’s patrol cars had blocked access to the
Progress Village polling place throughout the day, and that sheriff’s
office personnel had intimidated at least one African-American voter.

The Voting Section investigated these allegations, including two trips
to Tampa to interview approximately fifteen witnesses. No witnesses could
attest to having seen any law enforcement officer block voter access to the
Progress Village polling place, or otherwise intimidate voters or deter
their participation. The only Election Day police activity career voting
staff could document near this polling place was an unrelated mid-afternoon
burglary call on the same street as the polling place, two blocks away, to
which two cruisers responded. Because no evidence of voter intimidation or
discrimination was discovered, the investigation was closed.

[Not Me]

efftSTP

[dtb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
POF - he said 98 times. Not sure substantively it matters whether its 98 or 600. It's still a lot.

Here's what USA Today has to say about the 98 number (he said 600 about something else -- but I can't remember what it was now -- or maybe I'm thinking of the 800 to 600 differential of something or other):

• Bush charged that Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times during his 19-year Senate career. Research by the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds the charge misleading. Of the 98 votes Bush referenced, 43 were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes and did not actually raise or lower taxes. The total also includes a number of procedural votes and multiple votes on the same bill. An example: 16 votes were cast on various versions of President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes, but only on the top 1% or 2% of earners.

Here's the
link.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How bout this from the AG: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/dojfl060702.html

Who is the AG? Your sources suck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
Here's what USA Today has to say about the 98 number (he said 600 about something else -- but I can't remember what it was now -- or maybe I'm thinking of the 800 to 600 differential of something or other):

• Bush charged that Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times during his 19-year Senate career. Research by the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds the charge misleading. Of the 98 votes Bush referenced, 43 were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes and did not actually raise or lower taxes. The total also includes a number of procedural votes and multiple votes on the same bill. An example: 16 votes were cast on various versions of President Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package, which raised taxes, but only on the top 1% or 2% of earners.

Here's the
link.

Bilmore, if I were you, I would give up on this conversation now. First of all, dtb is actually willing to read USA Today, which suggests a ruthlessness and commitment the rest of us can only dream of. Second, she's either smart enough to have found their web site or bored enough to type in this quote from the paper edition. Third, in trying to defend the substance of Bush's domestic policy, you have a pretty weak hand to start with -- there's a reason that the man was running on the war on terror.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who is the AG? Your sources suck.

Um, the United States Attorney General investigating the bogus claims.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bilmore, if I were you, I would give up on this conversation now. First of all, dtb is actually willing to read USA Today, which suggests a ruthlessness and commitment the rest of us can only dream of. Second, she's either smart enough to have found their web site or bored enough to type in this quote from the paper edition. Third, in trying to defend the substance of Bush's domestic policy, you have a pretty weak hand to start with -- there's a reason that the man was running on the war on terror.

Why, I'm blushing!!

I feel honor bound to confess that I got to the USA Today site -- what a freaking rag by the way; I don't know if it's right, left or "other", but what a stupid paper -- through the www.factcheck.org site, which seems to try to shoot down the middle. At least both sides use it as proof of (a) the other side's "lies" and/or (b) the "truth" of their own claims.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
you're new to this board.

your sources suck

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Note that Kerry didn't say "net," and bilmore's source did. Coincidence?

No, logic. Kerry's implication is net. If you want to argue that it's not, then it would be logical to make that same statement if 1.6MM jobs were lost in W's first year, and 44MM were gained in the next three.

And enough about the excuses about the hand that he was dealt -- given that we are now 2,700,000 jobs below where the White House predicted we'd be when it sold the tax cuts, there can't really be any dispute that the White House's policies have been a collosal failure in the jobs department, right?

A failure in the prediction department, maybe, but tell me where we'd be without the cuts? What's unemployment right now - 5.4%? Not too shabby.

Is it possible that Kerry was talking about real income (after inflation), and that bilmore's source is conveniently ignoring inflation?

Don't know, can't tell. Seems like it owuld have made sense for Kerry to specifiy if that were the case.

But this isn't responsive, is it? Without supporting evidence, bilmore's source calls Kerry's statement an urban legend, and then shifts to talk about rates of increase instead. (Think about it this way -- the fastest growing counties tend to be those with the smallest population, while larger counties add more population, but aren't growing as fast.)

Tell me Kerry's source for this statement about the $9k. The HF article at least calls out some objective measurement.

More mendacity: Bilmore's source restricts the question to "income taxes," but that's not what Kerry said, is it?

Only while dealing with that percentage thrown out. The rest is in dollars. And, besides, what subject was being discussed other than income tax?

I don't know the details of Kerry's plan, so RT has my proxy on the first part of this one. On the second, I note only that Bush seemed to think that Kerry's plan involved providing health care to all, gratis, so perhaps he's not the most credible source on which to base an empirical attack on it?

Kerry's plan is to form our own version of Swiss Re for health insurers, taking all the cat risk to be paid out of my pocket. Great plan. He says that, because the feds (uh, my paycheck, I mean) will cover all losses above some determined amount, insurers can charge employers less, and so employers will voluntarily cover more people. (Except, he says it won't really be voluntary, cuz he'll hit them with penalties if they don't.) He's taken a bigger step towards HilaryCare than even Hilary dared, and he leaves a great situation for continued gradual and quiet lowering of that cat level until we truly do have single-payor. Not only does this not touch actual costs, (it just changes who pays), it puts the onus of efficiency and cost-cutting on . . . wait for it . . . federal government. Get ready for the $600 office visit, paid for by taxes.

If bilmore's source doesn't understand what Kerry was saying, how can he debunk it? Perhaps by addressing health-insurance premiums instad of costs?

Seems to me that Kerry is talking to "us" about "our" costs. Doesn't premium cost describe that burden most accurately?

Is it not odd that this author said nothing about the percentage of the population that was uninsured in 2000? Is Kerry running against Bill Clinton?

{{Edited to remove a response that, on reflection, makes no sense.}}.

Can anyone say with a straight face that preventing the government from negotiating with drug companies might cost the drug companies money and in any event won't earn them profits? Can we just call it the Hackitage Foundation?

Apparently, Price Waterhouse could, and did, say just that. But I know what you mean - I've always been impressed with fedgov's abilities to negotiate costs and increase efficiency.

Did Kerry talk only about public universities? And does anyone here live in a world in which college tuitions have been dropping? (Not in California they haven't.)

No. Does anyone live in a world in which student subsidies have been dropping? (Not in the USA they haven't.) Do public university costs tend to mirror the costs of all universities? I believe so.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Um, the United States Attorney General investigating the bogus claims.

Yes. Now see here as to why many find this less than convincing. (spree - no big VF article, just a post on lawtalkers)

[dtb]

This is another debunking of the "98 votes" spin:

• The president said, as he often has elsewhere, that Mr. Kerry had voted for tax increases 98 times. That is probably true. But many, if not most, of those were multiple votes on the same bills or on nonbinding resolutions and motions.
  
  Mr. Kerry has voted for two large tax increases - the 1990 budget law backed by the president's father that put the country on the road to a balanced budget and President Bill Clinton's 1993 bill, which imposed most of the increases on upper-income taxpayers.

This is the article where this came from. There are other "fact check" items in there as well.