Talking Points
More video goodness from your Cry for Help. First off, watch this clip from the Daily Show (so you can make sense of the rest of this post).
So now that we "know" that John Kerry is the "most liberal senator" and way "out of the mainstream," do we really have to ask what that means? As Jon Stewart posits, according to the media the answer is no. But on the off-chance that you like to collect all available information and make a choice, here's something to consider.
Being "out of the mainstream" is a brilliant attack, since most people consider themselves part of the mainstream, even though many of those they see as out of the mainstream also consider themselves part of mainstream America. It's like the middle class, where families who earn $30,000 and families who earn $300,000 both consider themselves to be middle class. So "mainstream" is a nice code word for setting up an us vs. them conflict without actually saying anything substantial, policy-wise. Next time anyone, from either party, starts spouting on about who is in or out of the mainstream, you'll probably be better of tuning out.
As for the most (and fourth most) liberal senator thing, this "attack" is more willful ignorance. I hate the idea of the word liberal being a pejorative, but I recognize that it's the L-word to a lot of people. That aside, does anyone know where this ranking came from? It takes into account split senate votes, assigning the position of most Democrats as "liberal" and most Republicans as "conservative." This, of course, makes supporting that gigantic expansion of Medicare a "conservative" issue, which is ridiculous. Even putting that aside, you still have a misleading scale. My mother is all of five feet tall, but in a room full of children she is the tallest person. Is she tall? Nope. The senate, especially controlled, as it is now, by Republicans, does not bring truly liberal issues to a vote. This idea that Kerry is "far-left" is way off. Once he proposes breaking up GE or nationalizing the oil industry, then we can call him far-left. We all should be insulted by the unrelenting attacks from this angle. (Kevin Drum has another thing to consider about this ranking, too, though he misses the wider point also)
And one last item on the talking points agenda: Kerry's vote against the $87 billion dollar appropriation for Iraq and the War on Terror. More than any other single issue, this vote has been brought up by Republican operatives and conservative commentators at every opportunity during the convention coverage. Here's what happened: Back in October, the administration figured out that the whole greeted-as-liberators, free-flowing-oil-will-pay-for-the-war thing wasn't working out, so Bush went to Congress (the guys who control the purse strings in this country) and asked for them for $87 billion. At this point in the war, well after "Mission Accomplished," the leadership in the war was beginning to look weak. What's more, Bush did not offer a way to pay for it.
John Kerry (and Edwards, too) voted against the final appropriation bill. Not because they didn't want to fund the troops, but because they didn't want to hand President Bush a huge check with no strings attached, no accountability. If that measure had somehow failed to pass, it's not as if the troops would have been left high and dry. There would have been another bill drafted, likely holding Bush accountable or perhaps including a way to pay for, rather than borrow, the needed funds. No senator, even the ones who voted against authorizing the war in Iraq, would have denied our troops anything they needed.
When Kerry cast that vote, in the midst of the pre-primary season, I didn't like him at all. But I still understood his vote. It's not rocket science. I realize most Americans don't have a solid idea of how the Senate works, but I know the media does, and I know elected officials and political surrogates do, so can we all just stop pretending?
What amazes me, though, is that Democratic commentators and spokespeople aren't even bringing this up. I think the American people can see beyond a soundbite when you give them a reasonable explanation.
So the point of this post is not so much to stick up for John Kerry, as I'm pretty sure every person who reads this site has made up their mind one way or the other. I just want to point out that it's up to you to not be fooled by people who depend on stupidity and incuriousity to forward their candidates or agendas. It's up to you to challenge rote talking points where you see them. This stuff is too important.
July 29th, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Well said.
I’d like to add another dimension to it. When Republicans are wrong, the spin machine doesn’t go for an argumentative “win.” They try to muddy the waters as much as possible so that there is frustration on the part of people trying to make sense of an issue.
It’s a two-fold gain. As frustration and helplessness increases, those people are also less likely to vote.