VoteVets.org ad takes a shot, but stays intact

September 22, 2006

I noted last week that VoteVets.org unveiled one of the campaign season’s most effective ads in Virginia, criticizing Sen. George Allen (R) for his vote against body armor funding in 2003. The ad drew such a positive response, and garnered so much support, VoteVets.org brought its ad to Pennsylvania to take on Sen. Rick Santorum (R).

The ad, however, quickly drew scrutiny. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and which often has non-partisan credibility, said the ad is false. Allen and Senate Republicans, FactCheck.org said, never voted against supplemental funding for body armor. The accusation, it said, is “just plain wrong.”

So, who’s right? Media Matters sets the record straight. Fortunately, the Senate record supports the VoteVets’ charge.

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.

In a statement to TPM Muckraker, VoteVets.org spokesman Eric Schmeltzer applauded the work of Media Matters. “The record is as clear as day on this vote, and MediaMatters has exposed FactCheck’s sloppy and false work for what it is.”

Now we know.

Sadly, FactCheck has been wrong before. You would think that with a name like “FactCheck,” they would triple-check themselves.

  • St. Ronnie said it best, and it’s clear his party has taken it to what passes for heart:

    “Facts are stupid things.”

  • Sounds like VoteVets should “bulletproof” their ad by revising it to cite to the Dodd Amendment instead of the Landrieu amendment.

  • FactCheck has had a tendency to often err in their accuracy. It might be paranoia, but their “objectivity” has also seemed to have a right-wing slant. Unfortunately, “opinion” such as the Arizona Republic’s, will probably trump the Vote Vets advertisement. After all, the former is so trustworthy. They and other news organizations stood up so firmly against the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry.
    Remember? 😉

  • Oh I see, it’s a semantics game: bullet proof vests and helmets versus the all encompassing ‘body armor.’ I’m sure the dead soldiers that would’ve been saved by this measure are happy that FactCheck.org is pointing out this glaring error.

  • I’m afraid I’m inclined to support FactCheck.org on this one. I recommend clicking through before you decide.

    First of all, they claim to have denounced Bush for similar ads run against Kerry, based on similar inaccuracies, so I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse them of a partisan slant just because they sometimes call our side on exaggerations or misstatement also. And it does not seem to be a matter of “bullet proof vests and helmets versus the all encompassing ‘body armor’ “; if what they claim is true, no senator mentioned body armor or bullet proof vests, and the bill did not either. [the question of whether helmets were mentioned seems a little less clear, but somewhat beside the point: there’s no question the troops received helmets. The helmets they got may be inadequate, but better helmets were not at issue in the amendment either]. I don’t think it’s reasonable to require all senators to be aware of everything their colleagues are claiming in press releases; it’s hard enough to get them to read the damn bills themselves.

    I think Drew’s got the right idea. Once you open yourself up to challenges on the factual accuracy of secondary issues, the debate over the substance gets lost.

  • FactCheck is wrong, Peter. But any organization funded by a far rightwinger like Walter Annenberg has to remember where their paychecks come from, so why is anyone surprised?

  • Wait: Allen’s defense is that he thought he was voting against modern helmets and shield inserts for the troops, not body armor? What the hell is wrong with the Republican party?

  • While I keep it bookmarked and look through it every couple weeks, I think that what’s wrong with FactCheck.org, at this particular time, is that they seem to feel a need to alternate between analysing Republican (or conservative) claims and Democratic (or, sometimes, liberal) claims for the truth of their facts. They don’t base whose claims will come under scrutiny based on the seriousness/severity of the claim or the egregiousness of the falsehood; nope, it’s simply taking turns. So, Bush or Cheney’s daily bit of b.s. will get a pass because yesterday was the day for GOP claims. No need to examine Bush’s claim that “we do not torture” – a Dem. mayor in Backwater, Kansas falsely stated that he’d always lived in Kansas, when in fact, he lived in Iowa for two years!!!!

  • In this case, one can only note that “someone has bounced a substantial “check”—and the return-check charge gets to come out of FactCheck’s credibility-wallet on this one.

    And peter—you should know that just because someone “gets the premise right some of the time,” it does not necessitate the assumption of “the correctness of the conclusion all of the time….”

    And it’s also ironic that the FactCheck gambit came out at about the same time that VoteVets set their sights on Sanitorium. Two distinct thoughts come to mind—why wait until after VoteVets changes targets and goes after someone in Pennsylvania (this question aims even more directly at the Republic’s ed-op)—and is there a “connection” between FactCheck and Sanitorium —other than that “they’re just from the same state?”

  • If you are tired of our lying representatives, vote absentee ballot. The voting machines cannot yet thwart or misrepresent them. The absentee system is in place, there is still time to sign up. We need to change all our representatives if we want a chance to redeem our nation.
    I am tired of all the lies. Absentee ballots are our only hope for possiblity of an honest vote count in November.

    • Comments are closed.