About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

AP reported litany of unchallenged GOP attacks on Dems; botched description of Kerry controversy

November 05, 2006 12:04 pm ET

SUMMARY: In a November 4 Associated Press article, reporter Liz Sidoti uncritically reported GOP attacks against Democrats, including that if Democrats win control of Congress next week, they will "let the terrorists win," institute "bigger government and higher taxes," and stand "on the border with open arms welcoming people across." Sidoti did not include any responses or rebuttals from Democrats.

30 Comments

In a November 4 article on Republicans' efforts to "energize their lackluster base," Associated Press staff writer Liz Sidoti reported on the numerous lines of attack recently used by GOP leaders against Democrats but did not include any response or rebuttal. According to the Republicans Sidoti quoted, if Democrats win control of Congress in the November 7 midterm elections, they will "let the terrorists win," institute "bigger government and higher taxes," stand "on the border with open arms welcoming people across, " "lead[] the culture war," and do the bidding of "every radical liberal organization in the country."

Further, in her description of the recent controversy surrounding remarks by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) on Iraq, Sidoti simply reported that he "appeared to suggest that those who do not get an education 'get stuck in Iraq,' " which led President Bush and other Republicans to accuse him of "insulting U.S. troops." Sidoti went on to note that Kerry subsequently apologized but did not report his explanation for the remarks -- that he had "botched" a joke intended to criticize Bush, not U.S. soldiers.

Sidoti's article focused on the concerns among Republican strategists that "swaths of GOP faithful will stay home on Tuesday" due to disenchantment over the war in Iraq and the recent scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL). Sidoti reported that this situation has led Republican leaders to warn "party loyalists of the perils of Democratic rule, castigating liberal icons and embracing conservative heroes." From the article:

"What would happen if the Democrats win?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked in an essay for National Review, a conservative publication. His ominous take is that taxes would be higher, the mission in Iraq would "be damned" and San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi, as the new speaker, would be "leading the culture war."

Clearly, Democrats do not agree with Hastert.

Not that it matters.

[...]

"If you want bigger government and higher taxes, vote for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. If you do want someone down on the border with open arms welcoming people across the border, vote for them," [House Majority Leader John] Boehner [R-OH] told Michael Medved, a conservative radio talk show host Thursday. "And, if you want to let the terrorists win in Iraq, just vote for the Democrats."

Such messages also show up on the campaign trail.

"Lois Murphy is extreme. Look at the company she keeps," says an ad Republicans are airing against the Democratic challenger in the suburban Philadelphia district of GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach. Pictures in the commercial include Pelosi, Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

It accuses "Liberal Lois" of wanting to raise taxes and ends: "She's supported by every radical liberal organization in the country. We can't risk Lois Murphy."

While Sidoti noted that "Democrats do not agree" with these Republican arguments, she at no point offered any substantive Democratic response to the attacks. Following are examples of possible rebuttals:

Taxes. As The New York Times reported on November 4, Democrats -- while opposed to Bush's tax cuts favoring the wealthiest Americans -- "strongly support many of the most popular tax breaks, including a higher child tax credit and elimination of the so-called marriage penalty." Moreover, recent polling shows that more Americans trust Democrats than Republicans to handle the issue of taxes.

Terrorism. The Times further reported that a Democratic congressional majority would seek to "enact all the antiterrorism initiatives recommended by the Sept. 11 commission" and "double special forces devoted to pursuing Osama bin Laden and others in terrorism networks, institute screening of all cargo containers entering the country and increase spending on the National Guard and emergency workers." Furthermore, Democrats argue that the war in Iraq has actually increased the level of global terrorism -- an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community, according to the unclassified portions of an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate.

Immigration. On May 25, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 with support from 38 Democrats and 23 Republicans. While the bill included a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants, it also featured numerous border-security measures. These included adding 14,000 new border patrol agents and 2,500 "port of entry" inspectors; constructing at least 370 miles of triple-layered fencing; and procuring unmanned aerial vehicles and other state-of-the-art surveillance technology.

Near the end of her article, Sidoti reported on the recent controversy surrounding remarks by Kerry:

Also, in a move that undoubtedly delighted the base, the White House led a two-day GOP effort to eviscerate Democrat John Kerry -- Bush's 2004 rival and one of the party faithful's favorite Democratic villains.

The Massachusetts senator appeared to suggest that those who do not get an education "get stuck in Iraq." Bush and his rank and file seized on the remark in a replay of sorts from the bitter presidential race.

They accused Kerry of insulting U.S. troops, demanded the senator apologize and claimed that the remarks exemplified a disparaging attitude the GOP says Democrats have toward the military. Kerry eventually apologized.

But Sidoti's account of Kerry's remarks and the subsequent uproar omits an important element of the story -- Kerry's explanation. While Sidoti noted that he "eventually apologized" for the comments, she makes no mention of Kerry's clarification that his remarks were intended to specifically criticize Bush. As Media Matters for America noted, this explanation is bolstered by what Kerry's staff claim were Kerry's prepared remarks. From the November 1 Los Angeles Times article on the controversy:

Kerry's office said the Democratic senator had misread prepared remarks, which said: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

Kerry's explanation that his comments were a "botched joke" is further supported by the fact that they came in the context of other quips regarding Bush's Iraq policy, as an October 31 AP article noted.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by leatherhelmet (November 05, 2006 12:13 pm ET)
         

      "As Media Matters for America noted, this explanation is bolstered by what Kerry's staff claim were Kerry's prepared remarks"

      Wow, that is irrefutable evidence -- claims by Kerry's staff, LOL. I'm sure MMFA would accept all claims by Karl Rove too.

      We all heard what he said and it was in character with his previous military bashing.

      Kerry never even said George Bush. Even if he said the line as is, it still is a slam on the military. Kerry's true colors continue to show why he lost to George Bush despite MMFA constant claims the American public trusted Democrats more in every catagory.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (November 05, 2006 1:24 pm ET)
           

        "Kerry never even said George Bush."

        He never said the troops either. That's what the far right inferred.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (November 05, 2006 1:43 pm ET)
             

          Since the far right knew he was referring to Bush the post should read:

          "He never said the troops either. That's what the far right fabricated."

          Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (November 05, 2006 1:48 pm ET)
           

        When Vice President Cheney said that shooting his friend in the face was an accident, I believed him. I'm extending the same courtesy to Senator Kerry.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (November 05, 2006 2:42 pm ET)
             

          "I'm extending the same courtesy to Senator Kerry."

          And the same courtesy that the White House expected everyone to extend to Cheney over his "dunk in the water" comments. Cheney said he didn't mean waterboarding (then what else could he have possibly meant, in the context of the quote?), and we were supposed to just accept that. But when Kerry makes a much more ambiguous comment, and where the context supports his explanation, we're supposed to believe he was slamming the troops a week before an election. When Kerry says "that's not what I meant", as Cheney did, well that's just ridiculous. Of course he was insulting the troops at such a delicate time, because he criticized Vietnam policy previously. That's just common sense.

          What unbelievable hypocrites.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (November 05, 2006 3:43 pm ET)
           

        We understand you are totally braiwashed and allergic to reality. No one with two brain cells to rub together believes Kerry went to a campiagn event meaning to insult the troops. Only desperate NEED to believe the ridiculous could make you continue to pretend he did. They SHOWED the prepared statement in black and white on the Daily Show. Keep beating this horse if you must but it isnt breathing and it definitly smells funny.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by DeminTX (November 05, 2006 9:34 pm ET)
           

        I'm active duty and heard Kerry's botched joke even before the transcript of what he meant to say was released. I knew exactly what he meant and who he was referring his comment to.

        I rarely post on here, but keep up with the posts as much as possible.

        LH - I have yet to read anything from you that has any substance or merit. I am not even sure why you bother with this site. There are some with opposing viewpoints that actually make this site interesting to follow, but you're not one of them.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (November 05, 2006 12:18 pm ET)
         

      Kerry is not George Carlin.

      Fine.

      He meant to insult the president, not the troops.

      Fine.

      Then his first apology was a refusal to apologize, err a week before elections which gives the Republicans a huge Democratic party target.

      What?

      Democrats, if they want to look sane should stay away from Kerry, like Republicans should the President. And by and large both are that is why niether is on the campaign trail --except in the President's case where he is drug out to the most red states or in real squeakers. This is also why the media can attack Kerry as they wish because no Democrat to Nov. 7th is going to defend him.

      As for the 24/7 Republican attack news cycle in the main stream media are we surprised at this point? And if they lose the election they'll claim the media worked against them. Again would anyone be surprised.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (November 05, 2006 5:54 pm ET)
         

      the BUSH ADMINISTRATION posts detailed NUCLEAR WEAPONS plans on the "INTERNETS"?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (November 05, 2006 7:08 pm ET)
         

      Even without the missing word, the only apology Kerry owes anyone, is for speaking the truth in circumstances where the requisite IQ to comprehend his remark, exceeds that of any extant Repugnant (or journalist?).

      Even as spoken, the comment is TRUE (note the persistent lowering of test scores and moral codes for recruits since Bungle decided to destroy - err, DEPLOY our forces in Iraq); although context makes clear that the appropriate interpretation is a slam directly at Bungle as a "moron" (again, TRUE although now *I* must apologize to morons, I suppose).

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (November 05, 2006 8:57 pm ET)
         

      Stop the presses! They are lowering our morals! Since when did Americans care about falling morals? The standard CGwinn is referring to (I assume) is the Navy and USMC allowing tattoos that they previously did not. Correct me if I'm wrong CG, or maybe you just received the official Moral Code Detector Ring that came in the mail?

      As for lowering of scores, a HS diploma is still a must. If you can claw your way through the liberal public school system you're in like Flinn!

      It's right in the manual:

      [link to fermat.nap.edu]

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (November 05, 2006 9:09 pm ET)
           

        What is this gibberish about?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 05, 2006 10:14 pm ET)
           

        is true, but I believe there have been changes in other standards as well, criminal record, membership in white supremacy and other extremist groups. These might nnot be tied as closely to morals as tattoos, but thats kinda subjective.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (November 06, 2006 1:55 am ET)
             

          Which Hogguy knows very well. Its just that those facts dont do his ideology any good so he tosses out this strawman softsoap of what is happening. As if allowing tatoos was the ONLY lowering of standards, and hopefully we will be uninformed enough to buy that. I mean it works for the rightwing screechmonkeys, their faithful believe anything they tell them no matter how ludicrous

          Report Abuse
        • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 12:43 pm ET)
             

          That really is the rub. The link I posted is the Army's manual and a guideline for the force.

          If you looked at the link it is broken into categories, Class I, II, III, IV. You can have a certain percentage of recruits that can come from either of these classes. What the army has done is shift those percentages. The recruit still has to have an ASVAB score that qualifies him for certain jobs. The bottom line is you still have to have a HS diploma or equivalent GED to enlist.

          On another note, just because a recruit may have a lower ASVAB score than another doesn't mean he will not be a good soldier. I wonder how many WWII vets that were heroes on the battlefield may not have had a HS diploma. I personally knew one who enlisted when he was sixteen years of age. Forged his fathers signature, and went on to win a Silver Star, Navy Cross, and Purple Heart on Iwo Jima. In fact he left his right arm on Iwo.

          Should we look down on men like that?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (November 06, 2006 2:53 pm ET)
               

            The point being made wasnt about educational standards but moral standards. So lets talk about Criminal convictions.

            [link to www.afterdowningstreet.org]

            Facing an enlistment crisis, the Army is granting "waivers" to an increasingly high percentage of recruits with criminal records -- and trying to hide it.

            Under Air National Guard rules, the dealer had committed a "major offense" that would bar him from military service. Air National Guard recruits, like other members of the military, cannot have drug convictions on their record. But on Feb. 2, 2005, the applicant who had been arrested in the mini-mall was admitted into the Delaware Air National Guard. How? Through the use of a little-known, but increasingly important, escape clause known as a waiver. Waivers, which are generally approved at the Pentagon, allow recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.

            This is where waivers come in. According to statistics provided to Salon by the office of the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, the Army said that 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) of its 2005 recruits were admitted under waivers. Put another way, more soldiers than are in an entire infantry division entered the Army in 2005 without meeting normal standards. This use of waivers represents a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000. (All annual figures used in this article are based on the government's fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30. So fiscal year 2006 began Oct. 1, 2005.)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 5:10 pm ET)
                 

              In a perfect world I'd like to see the armed services stick to higher standards. The problem is there are over 1 million felons in the target age group that recruiters have to choose from. Taking that into account and the drumbeat from the left that everyone deserves a second chance, I'm a little miffed that folks on this site are now up in arms about these same kids NOT getting a second chance.

              If I remember it was the left that wants to let felons be able to vote. Felons that get work release programs from jail. If that is the case, why not let a felon out of jail serve his country?

              As is the case with most of these things you can point out an isolated incident here and there, but this isn't the norm. One more thing your left wing blogs are not reporting is that overall RETENTION (soldiers reenlisting) remains high, even though they are doing multiple tours of duty. Also the OCS programs haven't lowered any standards for soldiers.

              I don't have the time or the will to do the research, but I bet (excluding WWI & II) that you would find that during any armed conflict the armed services probably had to take measures like this.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 5:11 pm ET)
                 

              In a perfect world I'd like to see the armed services stick to higher standards. The problem is there are over 1 million felons in the target age group that recruiters have to choose from. Taking that into account and the drumbeat from the left that everyone deserves a second chance, I'm a little miffed that folks on this site are now up in arms about these same kids NOT getting a second chance.

              If I remember it was the left that wants to let felons be able to vote. Felons that get work release programs from jail. If that is the case, why not let a felon out of jail serve his country?

              As is the case with most of these things you can point out an isolated incident here and there, but this isn't the norm. One more thing your left wing blogs are not reporting is that overall RETENTION (soldiers reenlisting) remains high, even though they are doing multiple tours of duty. Also the OCS programs haven't lowered any standards for soldiers.

              [link to www.army.mil]

              I don't have the time or the will to do the research, but I bet (excluding WWI & II) that you would find that during any armed conflict the armed services probably had to take measures like this.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 5:13 pm ET)
                   

                I was trying to add the link, but it posted anyway.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (November 06, 2006 7:56 pm ET)
                   

                statistics from a "far left web site" even though the figures are from the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 9:48 pm ET)
                     

                  Yes I "will ignore" a website that has "Impeach Bush/Cheney" as a headline font. I'm sure they vetted all the facts and didn't twist the context in any way...

                  By the way I looked for that interview on the DOD website. Want to take a guess what I found? Let's see if you can connect the dots...

                  [link to www.defenselink.mil]

                  Happy hunting!

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (November 06, 2006 1:57 am ET)
           

        I was subjected to the rightwing rantings of my MATH teacher?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 9:52 pm ET)
             

          ...Sociology teacher and Drama teacher in high school peddling left wing nonsense and go all in with just about every undergraduate professor doing the same.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (November 06, 2006 1:59 am ET)
         

      I appreciate the support! Yes, for those who cannot comprehend the plain English, "lowering of moral codes" does indeed reference increased tolerance for even felony convictions (unlike mere voting, where the Repugnants appear uniform in opposition); gang memberships; and the half-dozen other changes the Repugnants rammed through in September, 2005, to replenish the dwindling supply of cannon fodder. In combination with allowing up to 25% of new recruits to FAIL standardized testing previously required for entry into the military, for the past ten months, miraculously, (lowered) recruiting goals have been consistently met. Moreover, High School Diploma has NOT been required since 1990: in 2004, only 92% of recruits had diplomas, the balance were passed either on G.E.D.s, or were administered "equivalency" tests by the recruiter.

      I guess, beyond "morons" taking offence at being compared to Bungle, I must now issue apologies to all those offended by my belief that there would have been sufficient I.Q. running loose in even the critics of my perceptions, to obviate citing those facts.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sasami (November 06, 2006 2:55 am ET)
           

        My only question is: when will they allow the children of millionaires and influential politicians to join the ranks?!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by hogprint (November 06, 2006 1:08 pm ET)
           

        Can you please post a link with the data supporting the numbers you have posted? I have looked and looked and all I can find is an article from the San Fran fish wrapper stating the same data as yourself. They don't provide any links though. I would love to see exactly what they are reporting from. Thanks H

        Report Abuse
      • Author by hogprint (November 07, 2006 7:13 am ET)
           

        I did some homework for you. Here is what the AP says about the situation:

        [link to www.military.com]

        That directly contradicts your unlinked post. Again I ask. Please provide some links with your data, so us "morons" can be enlightened.

        Just who are the recruits? Here is a good article on the demographics of the US military recruit:

        [link to www.heritage.org]

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500