"President Bush knows that there were two versions of this appropriations bill. What he also knows, but chooses not to tell the American people, is that the version I voted for would not have added to our enormous federal deficit; it required fiscal responsibility by rolling back part of the tax cut for Americans with incomes above $200,000 a year, and by requiring that half of the reconstruction funds be in the form of a loan to Iraq.
"What the President also doesn't tell the American public is that the version I and the other Senate Democrats supported would have extended to National Guardsmen and reservists called up to active duty, and to their families, the health care system which regular active duty military personnel enjoy.
"Finally, the President doesn't tell you that he hated this fiscally-responsible, troop-supportive version of the Iraq appropriations bill so much that he threatened to veto it if it came to his desk in this form, and that the Republican Senate leadership gave in to him and removed these provisions, provisions which would have kept our deficit from ballooning and would have provided health care to the families of Guardsmen and reservists who are risking their lives for us in Iraq."
My full e-mail letter to the Kerry campaign is copied below. How do I/we get them to see that this is how Kerry needs to answer?
To: The Kerry campaign (tellus@johnkerry.com)
Dear Sir or Madam:
PLEASE prepare a direct answer to the false accusation by Bush and the Republicans that Kerry (1) is a "flip-flopper" because he voted for the authority to use force and for the $87 billion Iraq appropriations bill and then voted against the appropriations; and/or (2) does not support the troops since he voted for the authority to use force and then voted against the appropriations. Neither response I typically hear from the senator is at all convincing: "I described my vote wrongly but President Bush acted wrongly", and "I disagreed with the no-bid contract for Halliburton".
Obviously, the Kerry campaign doen't think that this appropriations bill is still a relevant issue. BUT IT IS. You don't need to accept my anecdotal evidence for this, although my own experiences in talking to those around me are obviously reflected elsewhere, as seen by the constant listeners' complaints and frustrations about this voiced on the Randi Rhodes Show (Air America Radio). Simply examine the candidate characteristics section of the latest USA Today/CNN poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls-2.htm).
Particularly illuminating are the responses to Question 16, "Next, thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one applies more to John Kerry or more to George W. Bush." While John Kerry comes out ahead of or statistically tied with George Bush in most areas, he lags noticeably behind in these areas: (1) is a strong and decisive leader; (2) is believable (despite scoring two points from Bush on "is honest and trustworthy"); and (3) is more likely to keep his campaign promises. Be honest: what do you think is the single most damaging attack argument the Bush campaign has used to convince people that Kerry is not strong, decisive, believable, or committed to his promises?
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE respond to Bush with a direct, honest answer -- one I have suggested before and repeat below -- which will put Bush on the defensive in two important areas:
"President Bush knows that there were two versions of this appropriations bill. What he also knows, but chooses not to tell the American people, is that the version I voted for would not have added to our enormous federal deficit; it required fiscal responsibility by rolling back part of the tax cut for Americans with incomes above $200,000 a year, and by requiring that half of the reconstruction funds be in the form of a loan to Iraq.
"What the President also doesn't tell the American public is that the version I and the other Senate Democrats supported would have extended to National Guardsmen and reservists called up to active duty, and to their families, the health care system which regular active duty military personnel enjoy.
"Finally, the President doesn't tell you that he hated this fiscally-responsible, troop-supportive version of the Iraq appropriations bill so much that he threatened to veto it if it came to his desk in this form, and that the Republican Senate leadership gave in to him and removed these provisions, provisions which would have kept our deficit from ballooning and would have provided health care to the families of Guardsmen and reservists who are risking their lives for us in Iraq."
Obviously, there can be a shorter version of this response, simply noting fiscal responsibility and support of our troops by providing health care.
The point is that such a response gives the American public a DECISIVE answer for why John Kerry voted first for and then against the Iraq appropriations bill. More importantly, it gives the public a response which shows George Bush to be FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE and CALLOUS toward our troops.
What more could you possibly want?