Presidential Politics 2004

Political advertisements are exempt from the truth in advertising laws. The proliferation of 527 committees has exacerbated the situation. Groups such the “Swift Boat Veterans for ‘Truth’” on the right and Move-on.org on the left are free to state as fact, things that are demonstrably not true, i.e. lies. The campaigns are a little more careful, preferring spin to outright lies. But spin is nothing more than the application of carefully selected facts, wrapped in meaningless characterizations and speculations designed to make the voter believe things that are not true, i.e. lies.

If the campaigns do not provide accurate information what of the mainstream press?

The right has long complained of a liberal media bias. The right believes that reporting facts that do not support their position is biased. At its best the mainstream press sits the opposition, pointing out all the flaws in the policies of those in power. Since the right has most of the money and the power they are frequently the target. However, campaign season is not the mainstream press at its best. Campaign coverage is superficial, they treat the campaign as a horse race who’s ahead and who’s behind. The lead story is the latest poll results, nothing useful in helping the voter decide.

What about alternative news sources?

The right has developed a very effective strategy to deal with the press, they buy it. “News” sources like FOX News and virtually all of talk radio are owned and operated by the right. They are not simply “biased” toward the right they are pure propaganda outlets. One day I was listening to Rush Limbaugh as he mercilessly lambasted then President Clinton for planning to run for a third term as president. You had be listening very carefully to the first 15 seconds of the segment to realized the 30 minute tirade was based on nothing more than “What if President Clinton was thinking of running for a third term?”

Let’s take a look at some of the issues.

Vietnam

Does it really matter? Probably not, neither of candidates are today who they were then. However that has not stopped the vicious attacks on both candidates.

John Kerry

The “Swift Boat Veterans for ‘Truth’” ran ads proclaiming that John Kerry was lying about his combat service. Republican senator John McCain called the ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. He was no stranger to the tactic. “It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me.” http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/

Why the lies? first, to get their man elected. That was certainly the only reason for the attacks during the 2000 primary campaign on John McCain’s very admirable service. But the attacks on John Kerry go deeper. Vietnam was the most heavily divisive issue of its day. The two sides hated each other with a passion that is almost unfathomable. And for many that day has never ended. When he came home, John Kerry, decorated war hero http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460, changed sides and changed sides very publicly. For many that was an act of treason, absolutely unforgivable. For them anything necessary to stop John Kerry is justified.

For a rundown of the facts try: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

George Bush

George Bush didn’t go to Vietnam, but then neither did I. Did his family connections help him avoid service? Of course, but then I’m sure my mom requested the intersession of the Almighty on my behalf. Various groups have claimed that George Bush did not satisfy the requirements for his National Guard service. The basis is a number of documents that don’t or no longer exist and a few documents that cannot be verified. But a document that does exist and was verified is an honorable discharge. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

Iraq

This issue matters big time.

The war in Iraq was a very different kind of war. Unlike the WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the first Gulf War there was no precipitating incident. It was a preemptive war. The administration stated that Iraq presented an imminent threat to use weapons of mass destruction. That is the only reason good enough to justify such action.

But now the evidence is in, there were no weapons of mass destruction, much less an imminent threat. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html,

Not only do we know there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we now know that senior administration offices were aware that the evidence for weapons of mass destruction was at best suspect. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login

Writing for the journal Foreign Affairs, George A. Lopez and David Cortright make a persuasive argument that the sanctions, much maligned by the George Bush worked.

“But despite Saddam’s recalcitrance, the record now shows that the UN disarmament program — which Vice President Dick Cheney dubbed ‘the most intrusive system of arms control in history’ — decapitated Iraq’s banned weapons programs and destroyed the infrastructure that would have allowed it to restart clandestine programs.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701faessay83409/george-a-lopez-david-cortright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.html

At the time of the first Gulf War the case against Iraq was beyond question. An yet George Bush senior took months to build support around the world. He understood, as apparently his son does not, that unilateral action is very dangerous.

We continue to pay a very high price for war. Over 1,000 Americans have died in the fighting so far. Over 12,000 innocent civilians were killed by US action plus uncounted others at the hands of insurgents, and the death toll rises every day. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

We inflicted a couple hundred billion dollars in damages and drove our economy from budget surpluses to the largest deficit in history.

We lost the respect of our allies and we are reviled throughout the Arab world. In Pakistan, perhaps the Bush administration’s closest ally in the war on terrorism, 46% of the people believe that suicide bombings against Americans are justified! In Jordan over 70% believe such action is justified! The fight on terrorism requires allies throughout the world, especially among Arab moderates. Instead we have driven the moderates to support of terrorism.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

If a flawed choice to go to war weren’t enough the conduct of the war leaves more than a little to be desired.

Abu Ghraib was the symbol of the mistreatment of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. Somehow we turned it into a symbol of the mistreatment of the Iraqi people by the US. Was George Bush responsible for the atrocities? No, but neither has he shown the appropriate level of indignation.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

The economy

Not long after coming to office George Bush proposed tax cuts. I watched television as he explained that there would be budget surpluses for the next ten years and he wanted to give some it back to taxpayers. Less than a year later the budget surplus was gone and he said that we needed the tax cut because the economy needed help. Next came 9/11 and he said we needed a tax cut to fight terrorism. Next, the war in Iraq and we needed a tax cut for the war!

And for all the administrations claims that this is a middle tax cut that simply isn’t the truth. As republican John McCain pointed out “60 percent of the benefits from Bush’s tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need.”

As reported by the Congressional Budget Office the tax cuts are nothing less than a shift in the burden of taxation away from the rich and onto the middle class.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

Supreme Court

Also at stake in the election is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is 84; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 79; and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 74. Only Clarence Thomas is under 65. It is likely the next president will name several new members to the court. George Bush has publicly stated that the two justices he admires are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two justices on the extreme right of the court.

A sharp shift further to the right will have a dramatic and nasty effect upon the nation.

Some months ago Findlaw did a detailed analysis on the likely impact of this election on the direction of the court. It is well worth reading.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/

Science

At heart I’m an engineer. I believe you can ignore and distort facts only at your own peril. When the government ignores and distorts facts the nation is in peril. I find the behavior of the administration particularly troubling because of extraordinary extent of the distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientist, not usually very active in partisan politics, stated in a document signed by 5,000 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates :

“Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm

Since that report was released the administration’s actions have only provided additional examples of this wanton disregard for scientific facts.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

I find this type of subjugation of science to politics infuriating.