Maybe when it’s a vote to make taxes higher than they would otherwise be.
My colleague David Boaz brought to my attention this note about an article in the Washington Post [WP] from Slate’s “Today’s Papers” column:
“Clearly pumped up,” Bush repeated claims that John Kerry has voted to raise taxes more than 350 times over the course of his career–a figure, the WP notes, that craftily includes votes against proposed tax cuts as well.
How very crafty of the Bush campaign to point out that a vote that, had it been successful, would have resulted in higher taxes, is a vote to raise taxes. No wonder John Kerry calls them “crooked.”
P.S. The Washington Post article states:
“The president said, as his campaign has claimed, that Kerry has ‘voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people.’ That figure includes times that Kerry voted against tax cuts.” It’s Slate that’s calling the point “crafty.”
I just wanted to let you know that your blog has become very entertaining, informative and thought provoking. I’m glad you’ve picked up the pace with your posts.
I’m also pleased with the people that are posting to the comments. All of you are obviously intelligent, thoughtful people.
As for the subject at hand, that’s why I don’t read papers or listen to the news commentaries. They all have a political agenda of some sort. I’ve been much more successful getting my news from the web. Many sources, many views, but, my decision.
Well, maybe.
But I think this is a case where the statistic can be literally true and still deceptive.
If I heard that a politician voted “for higher taxes”, my impression would be that they voted for an increase over the current level of taxation. Not that they voted against a cut.
Unless you believe that there’s really no difference between the two (and I would bet that most people don’t), I don’t think the term “crafty” is out of line.