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 ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 1:12pm

<>


That isn't Bush's position, and all this business about women's rights being rolled back is nothing more than fear mongering.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 2:00pm
BC hasn't been an issue in my family so far, being too fertile is though! :-) I hope abstinence plays a big part for my daughter, it did with me, especially knowing the family history. Otherwise, hello Pill. I think I'll have to decide how outgoing she is and when I think might be the best time to suggest. One of the biggest deterents of sex in my teens, besides the family history, was really good sex ed. All the teacher had to tell me was that there was no fool proof 100% method and I was abstaining. I wanted to go to college more than I wanted to fool around. So I'll certainly employ that tactic - as much education as she can get. One of my college friends that had an abortion was Catholic. (The boy in question was too - so Catholic he didn't believe in BC, however when she became pregnant, he believed in abortion. Go figure) This same friend had a nun tell her that abstinence was a form of BC too.

As to knowing if my daughter is having an abortion, I'd want to know just to be there for her, and of course with a medical procedure if she were 18, I'd certainly want to know that too. When I was closer to that age, I thought I was so grown up and kids my age could make that decision themselves, but after college, I changed my mind. My college friends were having a hard enough time deciding that I don't know when you could really consider yourself old enough in some ways.

In the end I guess we'll see. All we can do is arm them the best we can and love the stuffing out of them! :-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Wed, 08-25-2004 - 9:28pm
Congratulations on the second baby to come!!!! I'm also on my second, due oddly enough on Halloween. I have a beautiful 2yr old girl, who is crying so I better go take care of her.

I'm back now, she wanted to see her dady, who's been sleeping all day after night shift.

I thought I'd way in on the subject of birthcontrol for my kids. I haven't decided for sure I'm hoping they will come up with something more long term yet safer then most of the things available now. I would hope we will be close enough that she will use abstinence, although when I was a teen I ussually was abstinent but I did mess up a couple times. So I'm not going to expect that she would never do anything.

I had problems with the pill, and depo. The depo was the worst so I defineately don't want her on that. The pill caused me to bleed, plus there's always the chance of forgeting to take it. I even used a diaphragm for a while, but I never really took it seriously, maybe more cause I'm married. The IUD scares me, as do the things they put under the skin. I don't trust anyone to always use a condom, and they can break.

I have heard about something called the Nuva Ring, from what I gather it's inserted into the vagina and releases hormones like the pill, only not as high a dose. It's suppose to be removed after 3 weeks while you have your period, then you put in a new one. I'd like to investigate that more.

I did use the family planning method, but that's not something for a teen. I was trying to get pregnant. I used the book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" for guidence and it really taught me alot about my own body and other birthcontrol problems. You have to be really disciplined and really follow it correctly to use it for avoiding pregnancy, but it was very informative and helped me feel more in control of my body. Anyway I really hope they get more safe realistic options out. As for abortion I believe in the right to choose, although I would never do it myself. I just don't want to take steps backwards, and take rights away from women. I do believe it's not something to be taken lightly and should really be thought over before deciding on abortion, just way to emotional a thing. I'm not to fond of the morning after pill either, but I guess if it came down to it maybe that would be better then abortion.

That's my stand now, but I'll see how I feel about it all when she's a little older.

Venus

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2004
Thu, 08-26-2004 - 7:44am
Women have lost no rights in the past four years.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:34am

AHH!!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:39am
None. This is just the rhetorical machine in full swing to try to convince women that they have lost something.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 11:55am

<<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. >>


Texas does not have the highest teen pregnancy rate, but it does have one of the highest.


If you exclude DC from the statistics, which is completely off the charts at 256 teen

Renee ~~~

Pages