Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

VoteVets ad debunking debunked

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:34 AM
Original message
VoteVets ad debunking debunked
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 12:35 AM by RamboLiberal
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002

Summary: In defending Sen. George Allen against a new television advertisement criticizing his 2003 vote on a Democratic amendment that would have increased National Guard funding for body armor, The Arizona Republic falsely suggested -- and the website FactCheck.org falsely asserted -- that Allen and his Republican colleagues have never voted against supplemental funding for body armor.
In recent days, both The Arizona Republic editorial page and the website FactCheck.org have attacked as "deceitful" and "just plain wrong" a television advertisement by the newly formed group Vote Vets criticizing Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA) for his April 2003 opposition to a Democratic amendment that would have increased U.S. National Guard funding for body armor. While the Republic and FactCheck have conceded that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), the amendment's sponsor, made clear in a press release that the $1 billion measure included funding for helmets and bulletproof vests, both outlets have nonetheless argued that, because Landrieu did not specify "body armor" as a "priority" when discussing the legislation on the Senate floor, the assertion that Allen voted against body armor is "false" and "scandalous." But regardless of whether Landrieu specifically cited "body armor," she repeatedly stated on the floor that the bill would ensure that National Guard soldiers had "helmets" and other "force protection" equipment intended to "minimize causalities." More important, in their defense of Allen, the Republic falsely suggested -- and FactCheck falsely asserted -- that Allen and his Republican colleagues have never voted against supplemental funding for body armor. In fact, six months later, they opposed an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), which would have provided additional funding explicitly for body armor.

The television ad in question depicts Army reservist Pete Granato firing a gun at two mannequins -- one outfitted with a "vest left over from the Vietnam War" and the other wearing "modern body armor." Granato explains that the "difference is life or death" and demonstrates that while the new body armor stopped the bullets, the outdated equipment did not. He then holds up the modern vest and states, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him."

While the ad has not yet aired in Arizona, where incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Kyl is being challenged by Democrat Jim Pederson, the Republic wrote the editorial in apparent anticipation of its appearance, describing it as "a certifiable 'hit piece' campaign ad that is believed to target at least four Republican lawmakers up for re-election, including Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Funny stuff, I was in a meeting tonite, DEM Tom Wyka for COngress
All the staff who saw the VOte Vets ad thought it was great, some... thought is was possiblly the best political ad ever seen in our lifetime, myself included.

Rock on Vote Vets

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Look the Repugs are playing semantics with votes...
remember the crap they pulled in 04 voting for or against. Body armor means bullet proof vest. The question should be did they or did they not vote against her proposal. Come on people Repugs would be all over Dems like flys on s--t if a Dem voted against it. It obvious they were not interested in properly equipping the troops. I say keep slamming them with the ad. Remember the swiftboat a-holes are out there too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. Important to remember
Factcheck.org is NOT our friend. Never has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. and never will be.....


theirs are "relative" facts....meaning maybe they are facts, and maybe not....depending on which way you cross your eyes, and dot your "T"s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. No more "fair and balanced" than Fox news
It always amazes me when I see DUers and other purported progressives used factcheck.org as a reference.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. Screw FauxCheck.....
Sorry, but that sort of ridiculous nit-picking is an attempt to wriggle out of the fact that Macacca voted AGAINST protecting the troops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
7. The GOP sure hates this ad
Makes you wonder why, since it's so "riddled" with errors. They've even sent their concern trolls over here to DU to try to explain how holding Allen and Santorum to account will hurt Democrats.

Makes me think the ad is very effective, even to the primitive lizard brains. Maybe especially to the primitive lizard brains. Bullet holes are very effective talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
8. Factcheck is wrong so often they should be hounded out of business, but
I'd guess they exist to maximize trivial Dem errors and minimize major lies of the BushInc paymasters who make their mortgage payments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC