Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance
37
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 7:09pm
Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance


http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241


A Bush-Cheney '04 ad released Aug. 13 accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.


Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).


Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and  attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.


Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry.



Analysis


 


Kerry often touts his eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a prime qualification for office. The Bush ad takes that on, describing Kerry as a no-show for most of the committee's public meetings. If anything, the ad understates Kerry's lack of attendance.






 Bush - Cheney '04 Ad


"Intel"


Announcer: John Kerry promises...


Kerry: I will immediately reform the intelligence system.


Announcer: Oh really...as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings.


In the year after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry was absent for every single one.


That same year he proposed slashing America's intelligence budget by 6 billion dollars.


There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does.


Public Hearings


The Bush ad shows Kerry promising to "immediately reform the intelligence system," then counters with an announcer saying "as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings." As support for that statement, the Bush campaign states that Kerry is listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left the committee.


FactCheck.org examined the official, published records of those hearings. And indeed, Kerry is listed as attending only 11 of those hearings.


Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.


However, the Bush ad's lower figure plays it safe -- giving Kerry credit for attending one hearing for which the record is a bit ambiguous. The record of that hearing, on June 22, 1999, lacks the usual list of the senators and staff members who attended. We checked the full transcript for any sign that Kerry had been there, and found no record of Kerry speaking, or anyone else noting his presence. If Kerry is counted as absent from that hearing as well as the others, he missed nearly 78%. But if he attended and didn't speak, then he would have missed only 37 of the 49, for a no-show rate of 75.5%, which the ad properly rounds up to 76%.


In a  rebuttal to the ad, the Kerry camp accused Bush of "fuzzy math and bad stats," saying "They rely only on whether Sen... Kerry made statements in one of a small number of open hearings." That's not true. Records list senators and staff members as being present whether or not they spoke, and -- to repeat -- the 76 percent figure actually gives Kerry credit for attending one hearing for which there's no evidence of his participation.


What About the Closed Meetings?


The Kerry rebuttal also noted that most of the Intelligence Committee meetings are closed and attendance figures for closed meetings aren't public, which is true. But Kerry offered nothing to show that his attendance at closed meetings was better or worse than his attendance at open hearings. He also has passed up a chance to have the full record of his attendance made public.


Over the weekend, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, refused to say how often Kerry had attended closed meetings. But Roberts said Kerry could, if he wished, ask that his attendance at closed meetings be made public. Roberts spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press" Aug 15:



Q: Did he (Kerry) attend private sessions or was he not present?


Sen... Roberts: Well, I'm not going to get into whether he was there or not. Senator (Jay) Rockefeller (the Democratic Vice chairman of the committee) and I and the committee would have to agree to release the attendance records for...


Q: Well, it should be a matter of record, though, if you can...


Roberts: Well, it's in a closed hearing. . . . The easiest way out of this is for John Kerry and John Edwards to request of Senator Rockefeller and myself to release the attendance hearings; not only the public hearings, which they have rebutted, but the closed hearings. . . .
Q: Well, has he been a hard-working member?


Roberts:  They should request it. They should...


Q: Because that's one of the credentials he cites in his campaign.


Roberts: Well, hard-working member is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm just saying that John Kerry and John Edwards could ask Jay and myself to release the attendance records. It is important because you have to be in attendance to learn the job.


A Kerry campaign official responded to Roberts statement by saying "there's nothing to clear up" through releasing records of closed hearings. Stephanie Cutter, communications director of the Kerry campaign, said Aug 15 on CNN's Inside Politics Sunday:



Cutter:  Well, there's nothing to clear up. . . .  John Kerry has had a consistent record of improving intelligence over the past 20 years. He joined with many Republicans, including one of the chairs of the Republican campaign, Arlen Specter, to improve intelligence in a post-Cold War era. So this is -- this is just another distorted attack by George Bush, because he can't defend his own record.


As of 6:30pm Aug. 17 the Kerry campaign had made no request of the Senate Intelligence Committee to release records of the closed meetings, a committee spokesman told FactCheck.org.


"Vice Chairman?" Oops!


In their eagerness to dismiss the Bush ad's charges, Kerry campaign aides claimed that the senator had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, which isn't true. In fact, former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska was vice chairman of the panel for several years while Kerry was a more junior member of the panel. John Kerry left the committee in January 2001. He never served as vice chairman, a committee spokesman confirmed to us.


The erroneous claim appeared in several places on the Kerry website, one dating back to January, 2004, and another in a posting Aug. 13 to rebut the Bush ad. It said, "Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for eight years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee."Kerry senior adviser Tad Devine told Fox News, which first reported the discrepancy, that the campaign would be "happy to correct the record" if needed:



Devine: I'll have to check with the issues people. It was my understanding he was. But if that's, you know -- but if that's not a factual case, I'm sure we will be happy to correct the record.


Two days later the erroneous claim was still appearing on the Kerry website, however. On Aug. 17 The Associated Press quoted campaign spokesman Michael Meehan conceding the error, adding: "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey -- similar names."


Listen Carefully


The  Bush ad also says Kerry was absent for every single Intelligence Committee meeting during the year "after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center." That's true. The official records list four public hearings in 1994 -- the year after terrorists set off a truck bomb in the Trade Center's underground garage -- and Kerry is listed as attending none of them. However, those  who don't listen carefully to the exact wording of the ad might get the impression that Kerry skipped Intelligence Committee hearings even after the second terrorist attacks -- on September 11, 2001. That would create a false impression. In fact, Kerry left the committee months before the 9/11 attacks.


The ad also says Kerry "proposed slashing America's intelligence budget by 6 billion dollars," but fails to mention that figure was spread over six years. It would have represented a 3.7% cut in overall intelligence spending, estimated then at $27 billion per year. Kerry's proposal was part of a large deficit-reduction package that was defeated soundly. For further details on that, see our earlier article on Bush's charge last March that Kerry tried to "gut" intelligence spending.



 

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2003
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 3:40pm
Renee

As a woman I would think that more women here would be concerned about the erosion of women's rights under the Bush administration. John Kerry has through out his entire career supported and promoted women's rights.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

As a mother with a teenage daughter, I have grave concerns about the course the Bush adminsitration has set for women's rights.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 3:42pm
I'm sure the Cliff Notes on Shakespeare adequately relays all the appropriate knowledge, so why should the Cliff Notes on Terror be any different?
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 4:25pm
I realize that you have decided that a condensed version is no adequate, that wasn't what I was asking. I am asking if you know that there is important information being left out? Do you know that it is not off topic or redundant information being removed? If you can't answer, that's ok. I'm just trying to understand if this is an issue or not.
NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:07pm
What you might think is so helpful and necessary for women, such as funding for contraceptives and family planning, and access to abortion, many of us think is actually harmful and very degrading to women. It's harmful to children also--they are viewed as a nuisance and a burden that must be stopped, instead of as miraculous gifts.

I am also very much against employer's insurance covering birth control, which is something Kerry is in favor of. Many employers will simply stop offering insurance, since it would become unaffordable, and then we'll be in an even worse situation. Birth control is simply not a medical necessity and therefore should not be covered by insurance. And think of Catholics who are against birth control--they would be paying premiums to an insurance company that is providing women with birth control. Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't believe in?

President Bush actually loves and values women and life. For example, you can see it in the way he treats his wife and the women in his administration. And of course he wants what is best for his lovely daughters.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:14pm
At least Bush reads his briefings, and doesnt toss them aside as Kerry has admitted to doing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 5:58pm

Thanks for replying so quickly. I must say I'm a bit surprised; the legislation is business friendly & bipartisan. If only he'd do more of that... ;-)


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2004
Tue, 08-24-2004 - 10:22pm
<

As a mother with a teenage daughter, I have grave concerns about the course the Bush adminsitration has set for women's rights.>>

Erosion of women's rights? What rights exactly have been "eroded?" What rights do you see Bush's course taking away? I'm just curious. Last time I looked, I could still vote, own property, hold a job, sue in court, take birth control, and even have an abortion. I don't have any less rights now than I did four years ago. So what rights have women lost under Bush?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 7:28am
<
I am also very much against employer's insurance covering birth control, which is something Kerry is in favor of. Many employers will simply stop offering insurance, since it would become unaffordable, and then we'll be in an even worse situation. Birth control is simply not a medical necessity and therefore should not be covered by insurance. And think of Catholics who are against birth control--they would be paying premiums to an insurance company that is providing women with birth control. Why should they be forced to pay for something they don't believe in?

President Bush actually loves and values women and life. For example, you can see it in the way he treats his wife and the women in his administration. And of course he wants what is best for his lovely daughters. >>


So we should go back to illegalized abortions. Let all these people having sex go without birth control and increase pregnancy. Great Idea!

As for not allowing birthcontrol coverage. Who is that helping? Most people with this coverage are not the single teen mothers that pro-lifers are so concerned about having sex, and unwanted pregnancy. These are full grown adults, many that are married and should have a right to get birthcontrol through their insurance if they want. I'm sorry if a Catholic or person of any other religion pays for insurance coverage they don't agree with. I don't agree with poping Ritalin and other drugs in every overactive kids mouth, that doesn't mean the insurance companies shouldn't cover drugs for ADHD.

There may be better answers to controlling teen sex, pregnancy, and abortion, but geting rid of contraceptives, family planning, and access to abortion is not the way.

Venus


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 8:42am
I believe the state with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates is Texas. I am in no way advocating abortion, but I'm saying that there doesn't seem to be any sex ed or accurate protrayal of necessary information. There are labor statistics for women that have disappeared off government websites, along with altered 10 year breast cancer studies that showed no link between abortion and breast cancer (BushCo had it changed to say that "there wasn't conclusive findings"), refusal to back funding for health care for women in other countries even after it was proven that abortion wasn't mentioned or offered to the women by a Republican appointed panel (I believe Colin Powell also stated this) - these women and their children are now dying because of the lack of healthcare, which Bush has forbidden be paid. And with Bush appointing so many neo-cons to the bench and perhaps some Supreme Court Justices to be appointed in the next four years, it's a concern that Roe-v-Wade may one day be overturned.

That's all I have off the top of my head.

BTW - Why do you women's issues all revolve around abortion? I've often wondered why we argue over this "after the horse if out of the barn". I've never heard anyone say they were Pro-Abortion. Why can't we have intelligent debates about how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? Is it really worse to discuss contraception, abstinence, and sex than to look at pictures of aborted fetuses?

When I was three months pregnant I found out I was going to miscarry. I spent another two hours in the Dr's facility to have another ultra-sound to confirm what the Dr found in her office. I was devastated. When I pulled out of the parking lot and stopped at a light, on the corner stood a group of old men (always seems to be men around my area too, rarely women) with a very graphic picture of an aborted fetus. The sign was about 10' x 4'. My thought process was these guys had no clue what was going on in my body and I was physically ill from the picture - knowing I may be viewing that myself from my own bodies rejection of the fetus. I wasn't upset that someone had chosen to abort when I so wanted my child, but just how personal pregnancy and this miscarriage was to me. I have friends who made that decision. One girl in college made that decision not once but twice and so casually it made me sick. Another made it and to this day, 10+ years later, is still affected by it. It's a very personal issue. (Happy ending - after another miscarriage, I now have a beautiful 2 yr old little girl! :-) )

Anyway, just once I'd like to hear the discussion turn to allowing a pregnant women her privacy, and taking the discussion and focus to prevention. I feel like this is an issue manipulated by the politicians. Bush right now has a shrinking base but the ones he can count on are the one issue voters like - abortion, guns, etc. (and staunch Republicans who'd vote for the devil himself if he was a Republican). If we could find common ground and move on, spending this money on prevention rather than Pro-Choice fighting Pro-Life, or even spending the money on breast cancer research we'd be a better society for it, but it might take some voters out of the solidly Republican column. And in turn Bush/Republicans might have to work harder to rally his/their base. I think we allow the politicians to manipulate and distract us.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 9:13am

<>


OH!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board