Bush veto threat meant 87B for Army not as important as tax cut for rich

[papau]

Bush veto threat meant 87B for Army not as important as tax cut for rich - at least in Bush's opinion.

I think that fits in with a domestic issues debate.


==============================================================

After the euphoria
John Kerry and his advisors had better not get too cocky over their victory in the first debate. They still need to shore up their weaknesses and hammer Bush harder.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/10/02/debate/index_np.html

<snip>
This first debate didn't conclude the campaign argument over foreign policy, national security, terrorism and Iraq. For many voters, and especially for most undecided voters, that argument may have just begun on Thursday night. While Kerry made a better impression on those voters than Bush did, he may not have yet won their votes.

If an inept Bush struggled to score against Kerry in debate, that doesn't mean the debate revealed no weaknesses that the Republicans will exploit in the days ahead. Potentially the most significant of those is the contradiction between Kerry's denunciation of the war in Iraq as a "distraction" and "diversion" -- the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" -- and his declaration on Thursday night that American troops aren't dying there "for a mistake."

Instead he must offer a simple and straightforward response: Yes, the president went into Iraq the wrong way at the wrong time. But I will clean up the mess he has left us, and do so with competence and the assistance of our allies. The president misled us into a war he wasn't prepared to finish, but I will lead us out with honor.

He will also have to address himself more directly to the continuing complaint about his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. His explanation that he misspoke won't work, and he can't keep turning it around on Bush as he did during the debate. Kerry missed the opportunity to tell Americans something that perhaps none of them know: that the President repeatedly threatened to veto that same $87 billion bill. The reasons behind that veto threat, which included protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest voters and refusing to provide medical care to National Guard and Reserve families, would almost certainly appall most swing voters. But Kerry inexplicably neglects to talk about the presidential veto threat. If the bill was so critical to protecting American troops, Kerry could demand, why did the president threaten a veto?<snip>

[papau]

1. If you agree the 87 Billion veto threat should be in Next Friday's debate,

please email Kerry via

http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php

[sonicx]

12. Done. yes, everyone send emails. nt

[girl gone mad]

2. I loved Kerry's line about that in the debate.

But I agree, Kerry should have mentioned that Bush threatened to veto the 87B.

[Karmadillo]

3. Excellent point. I don't think Kerry has anything to lose by

setting the record straight. I'd love to hear Bush try to explain why threatening to veto the bill was a good thing.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Actually, the use of "I misspoke, but the pResident made a mistake"...

...was quite shrewd. He's gone this long without answering the $87b charge that he can wait another week or two - especially if he scored a few points off it this time.

And if you know me, you know that I'm an advocate of Kerry clearing the air on the $87b.

23.

[JPJones]

15. I absolutely agree that Kerry is holding off on explaining

how the Senate works until the 2nd debate. You have to ease the nimrods' brains into a new idea.

[sonicx]

16. I believe Kerry should have killed the issue earlier

It was brought up when he when to GMA and Letterman. They both set him up great, but he didn't knock it down. I don't think it's that hard to understand at all...

"The president wanted to veto the 87 billion because he was against repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. I, on the otherhand, knew that we're in war and it's not a time to borrow and spend our way into bigger deficits, which is what's happening right now. So the president and republicans made a new bill that let the rich keep their tax cuts and i thought it wasn't fair for them not to sacrific while the troops were forced to."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Kerry's not stupid..he is waging WAR not strategy

He knew if he used that one early and in that setting, it would diminish his chances of using it in later debates...I think he knows he is still up against the Town Hall setting where Bush does well for being so likable...I think he is waiting to get under his skin in his "likable" setting and make him self destruct...what he DID do was admit he made an error in his speaking...to have gone on and then used the George Bush threatened to veto it line would have made him appear defensive...he was on OFFENSE the other night...I trust Kerry.

[sonicx]

5. Kerry better bring up veto/87 billion on friday

it will shut the media whores up right away.

[papau]

6. I agree :-)

:-)

[sonicx]

10. What really pisses me off is that...

the media whores know that bush threatened to veto, yet they never bring it up. And the unprepared Democrat commentators never do either as far as i know.

But every liberal on the Internet knows the truth and it drives us nuts to see Kerry or noone from the campaign knock this issue down. It is so simple to do that i want to yell at the TV screen when i continually see Kerry miss chances to kill the issue. The first thing that comes out his mouth should be...

"Bush threatened to veto this bill because he wanted the rich to keep their tax cuts and drive up deficits. He was thinking of his corporate buddies more than the troops."

:grr:

[ClassWarrior]

7. Nice framing. Let's spread this one around.

Bush defended tax cuts for the wealthy over body armor for the troops.

Awesome...

23.

[JPJones]

8. Tax cuts for the filthy rich were more important than body armor

for the troops in Iraq. That's the way to frame it.

Edited per ClassWarrior's suggestion.

ClassWarrior - I wish the Kerry campaign would put DUers in charge of message. You hit the nail on the head with your posts.

[ClassWarrior]

11. I'd suggest "the wealthy" or "the priveleged" or "the elites" or...

..."the filthy rich." Being "rich" isn't perceived as a bad thing by most Americans. It's the abuse of that power that folks don't like.

23.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Thanks, I'm flattered.

I'd love to do strategy in a campaign. Have you ever read or head anything from George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at Berkely? He's all about framing the debate for the left.

23.

[debatepro]

13. Just sent - to Kerry

Remind people that Bush threatened to Veto the 87$ billion dollar package if it included a way to pay for it, which was removing tax welfare for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Instead Bush decided to put the tax welfare and 87 billion dollar package on a credit card to be paid by our children.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319.html
Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.

[sonicx]

17. kick nt