Kerry and MoveOn mislead on assault weapons (9/22)

By Bryan Keefer

The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban last week generated some misleading and inflammatory claims by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and MoveOn PAC, an independent liberal group running ads in support of the candidate.

A new MoveOn ad falsely implies that the expiration of the assault weapons ban would legalize machine guns. The ad shows a picture of an assault rifle, then suggests that such guns are capable of firing "up to 300 rounds per minute" - a rate which only military machine guns are capable of. As FactCheck.org pointed out, such weapons have been carefully regulated since 1934, and those regulations were unaffected by the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

The MoveOn ad also creates a rhetorical connection between the weapons and terrorism, stating that "In the hands of terrorists, [an AK-47] could kill hundreds." Kerry himself went even further on September 13 stump speech in which he attacked Bush for failing to push for renewing the assault weapons ban (though Bush has stated his support for its renewal). "[F]or the first time in 10 years," he said, "when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure. Today, George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of America's police officers harder, and that's just plain wrong."

This is the sort of technically true slur by implication that has become the gold standard for political spin. Kerry's charge that Bush "chose to make the job of terrorists easier" (our emphasis) suggests that Bush intended to do so. Moreover, the effects of the ban itself are hotly contested, with many concluding that, as it was written, the ban was largely ineffective. In particular, the Al Qaeda training manual Kerry referenced in his speech suggested terrorists could obtain similar weapons legally in the US even under the now-expired ban, something that would not have changed regardless of whether or not the legislation was renewed. But by connecting a deeply emotional concept - terrorism - to a marginally related subject - assault weapons - Kerry and MoveOn inflame and mislead in their attack on the President.

Update (9/23): A version of this post was included in our Philadephia Inquirer column today.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

9/21/2004 06:02:58 PM EST |

Sickly debate on health care (9/21)

By Ben Fritz

In the past week, President Bush has begun attacking John Kerry's health care plan, making yet another misleading charge against his opponent.

While promoting his own plan, Bush has frequently accused Kerry of wanting to put the federal government in charge of the health care system. His campaign makes this accusation in an ad that debuted September 12. It claims that the Democratic candidate would put "Washington bureaucrats in control," describing Kerry's proposal as "A government-run healthcare plan. 1.5 trillion dollar price tag. Big government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor."

Bush has made similar accusations in several recent campaign speeches. On September 16, for instance, the President said of Kerry's plan, "the nationalization of health care would be wrong for America." The next day, he offered another attack along the same lines, stating, "See, I think the problem in this campaign that my opponent has is that it's a plan that is massive and it's big and it puts the government in control of health care."

Bush's evidence for this charge is flimsy. As he admitted in his September 16 speech, it's partly based on the contention that "Kerry believes we ought to increase the amount of people covered by Medicaid." In the "ad facts" supporting the ad, his campaign points to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John C. Goodman, president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. The op-ed claims that under Kerry's plan "millions of middle-income families will enroll in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor," as well as allowing Americans to buy into the Federal Employees Benefit Health Program, which allows individuals to choose from a menu of private insurers. The "ad facts" also cite a Weekly Standard op-ed by David Gratzer that argues the government would have more power over health care prices under Kerry's plan, which would subsidize the cost of catastrophic claims for insurers.

But none of these justify the scare tactic of calling Kerry's plan "government-run healthcare" that would take decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients. Certainly, government involvement in health care would increase under Kerry's proposal, but it would not result in the "nationalization of health care."

Americans deserve be insured against this sort of political quackery.

Update (9/23): A version of this post was included in our Philadephia Inquirer column today.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

9/20/2004 11:49:55 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS