Shouln't Kerry stop running away from the $87 bil topic and embrace it?

[UdoKier]

The media in their role as first-line attack dogs for the right, have made a lot of hay by referring to the $87 bil "for the troops" that Kerry "voted for before he voted against it", and alluding to his "severely lacking explanation" for the vote.

I personally thought that his explanation made perfect sense and that the only thing lacking was the media's interest in conveying the explanation.

Maybe Kerry should repeatedly refer to the $87 bil in funding (much of which went directly to Halliburton) that still failed to get many of our troops they body armor they needed, and how the Bushies INSISTED on adding that money to the deficit so that the tax cuts to the rich would not be affected. Kerry's only insistence from the beginning was that the extra spending be PAID FOR. He knew that the measure would pass either way, but he was trying to hold the line on Bush's deficit spending.

Being a deficit hawk got Perot a lot of votes from Bush 1 in 1992. Why can't this issue be turned from a negative into a positive by turning it into a DEM talking point?

[UdoKier]

1. I wanted to edit this, but it's not letting me, so...

There were two bills, both for $87 billion, both with provisions for body armor and higher combat pay. Kerry voted for one, he didn't vote for the other.


The bill Kerry voted for took the $87 billion out of Bush's tax cuts. The bill Kerry didn't vote for created an extra $87 billion obligation, but didn't do anything to fund it.

There was no "flip-flop"!

Lots of Republicans, by the way, voted against the bill that Kerry voted for. But they also voted for the bill he voted against. Discussion question: would it be fair to run campaign ads against those Republicans saying that they voted against providing body armor for our troops?

(I borrowed some from a poster at milblog.org. Apologies to zwichenzug.)

[UdoKier]

2. So are we as shy of this as Kerry?

Nobody thinks this would be a good idea?

[redqueen]

3. Good ideas

he may be address this Thurs nite

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. I saw ANOTHER WH, RW talking head

say this this morning..."John Kerry voted for the war and then voted against the $87 billion to help our troops." It goes UNANSWERED by EVERY journalist I have ever seen on the receiving end of that statement. I am hoping Kerry talks about this on Thursday night in his speech. I hope he explains EXACTLY how the RWers have twisted his vote to be against the troops. I hope he explains the borrowed money/deficit issue so the people know EXACTLY what happened. I hope he makes the repubs look like the fools that they are.

[UdoKier]

5. He had better address it!

It's too big a noose to leave hanging out there. Andd because of the way the media works and fails to cover the democratic side, a lot of repitition would be helpful.

[nyhuskyfan]

9. It has to be a short explanation

Something that fits into a sound bite -- otherwise, he'll be portrayed as someone trying to rationalize and make excuses. Much of the American public doesn't have the attention span to listen to listen to more than a couple sentences. That's what's wrong with this country sometimes -- we're intellectually lazy.

[Joanne98]

6. I've been thinking the same thing

I can't understand why the Kerry camp won't fire back on this one. All he has to say is that Bush stole the first money for the troops body armor so why should he give them a blank check? SO THEY COULD STEAL IT AGAIN? The troops STILL don't have body armor. They've been buying their own off e-bay. This is an excellent opportunity to point out that BUSH IS STEALING MONEY FROM THE TROOPS. There's also a trillion dollars missing from the DOD nobody can find. Why doesn't Bush find that money and use it? Bush could also take the BOOB JOB money the DOD is spending on cosmetic surgery and spend that on body armor instead. See, what you can do with this? It's a mystery why Kerry doesn't let them have it right between the eyes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. The boob job money! GREAT point!

This is THE time to air the TRUTH!

[Joanne98]

10. It is a great point.

It would shut the Rethugs right up. They don't want the faithful to hear about that one now do they?

[Eric J in MN]

8. Bush threatened to veto the 87 billion he now claims is so important,

if part of it was a loan to Iraq.

Please read my blog for ways to respond to Bush/Cheney deceit about the $87 billion.

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_07_22_respond_to_bush_deceit_about_the_87_billion_for_Iraq.asp