[zachs]

Bush (and his supporters) like to talk about Kerry's "flip-flopping". But Bush has flip-flopped plenty of times:

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors._ Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Bush (and his supporters) like to talk about Kerry's "flip-flopping". But Bush has flip-flopped plenty of times:

Kerry has the speed record for flopping. Can you post more than one-liners?

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]


"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."


--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]


9 Days apart. Funny. Sad.

[ghost_flash]

A few more:

-The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry's post-Cold War position of scaling back the CIA. But after 9/11, he complained of the lack of intelligence capabilities.

-Two decades ago, he opposed the death penalty for terrorists who killed Americans abroad. Today, he supports capital punishment for terrorist acts.

-Kerry voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing war against Iraq, notes Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. Last summer, Kerry said the resolution did not authorize "regime change." But that's exactly what the resolution called for, Mr. Lowry reminds. Kerry also voted to make regime change U.S. policy in 1998, he adds.

-Kerry accuses Attorney General John Ashcroft of violating civil liberties with the Patriot Act. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, positively "pleased" with it.

[zachs]

Both of them have flip-flopped. The point is is that Kerry is not the only one. Bush has too.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Both of them have flip-flopped. The point is is that Kerry is not the only one. Bush has too.

Then why isn't your thread entitled: Bush and Kerry Flip-Flops?

[John F. Smith]

Your post isn't convincing. Next time, instead of bringing these sound-bites and out of context quotations, bring us facts.

[adamk]

Originally posted by zachs:
Both of them have flip-flopped. The point is is that Kerry is not the only one. Bush has too.

as a rule, i don't trust full-time politicians. i feel they fly in the face of a citizen (people) based government. politicians flip-flop as necessary to make themselves look good and re-elected.

the question should be: is there any point where flip-flopping is okay, even necessary in political issues?

in certain cases i can see it as being a required to achieve a goal (trade), but in other cases, such as the patriot act, it is apparent that many (democrat and republican alike) voted for the act, when they know it was inherently wrong, but feared being viewed as anti-american.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Then why isn't your thread entitled: Bush and Kerry Flip-Flops?

Because this post deals with Bush's flip-flops, not Kerry's.

Also, here are links backing up the statements:

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-'The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden'. Bush-'I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.'
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors._ Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Because this post deals with Bush's flip-flops, not Kerry's.

Also, here are links backing up the statements:

http://Bush is against campaign fina...'s for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-'The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden'. Bush-'I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.'
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors._ Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it

They don't work.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
They don't work.

Which ones?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
They don't work.

yes they do

[zachs]

Well if you're talking about the first one, I just fixed it.

[Zimphire]

One big Difference. Kerry has been attacking everyone else including Dean for being a flip flopper.

Glass houses.

[tie]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
-The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry's post-Cold War position of scaling back the CIA. But after 9/11, he complained of the lack of intelligence capabilities.

And how about Bush? Ditto on the complaining, then he betrays an undercover US spy, Valerie Plame.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by tie:
And how about Bush? Ditto on the complaining, then he betrays an undercover US spy, Valerie Plame.

Bush did? really? He did?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bush did? really? He did?

It was right after he sabotaged Amelia Earhart's plane, but prior to his time on the grassy knowl in Dallas.



Seriously...the existence of this thread is funny. If you want to know what Kerry's supporters think are his weak points...just wait until you see a thread bashing Bush and that's likely what they think their own guy is going to be bashed for.

Sad.

[voodoo]

I'd rather be a flip than a flop.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
One big Difference. Kerry has been attacking everyone else including Dean for being a flip flopper.

Glass houses.

Didn't bush try to attack kerry for flopping?

Glass houses.

[zachs]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Didn't bush try to attack kerry for flopping?

Glass houses.

Yeah. But....but....he's the Preznit!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
It was right after he sabotaged Amelia Earhart's plane, but prior to his time on the grassy knowl in Dallas.



Seriously...the existence of this thread is funny. If you want to know what Kerry's supporters think are his weak points...just wait until you see a thread bashing Bush and that's likely what they think their own guy is going to be bashed for.

Sad.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
Bush (and his supporters) like to talk about Kerry's "flip-flopping". But Bush has flip-flopped plenty of times:

Coincidentally, I heard a Democratic Congresswoman from California on TV recite half of that list, practically word-for-word. Looks like yet another orchestrated DNC operation faithfully carried out by their loyal following.

[fizzlemynizzle]

OMG politicians flip flopping, unpossible.


Lincoln flip flopped on the whole reasons for fighting the civil war thing, too. First he said he wanted to see the union preserved whether it was with slavery or without, then later he declared it was about slavery. It's what politicians do.

I'd love to see all of the above flip flops for both Bush and Kerry within their full context. Usually they're either half the story, being distorted by their detractors or they're simply politicians saving face or appeasing to voters.

[Mithras]

[source]
That chart kicks so much a� I have nothing more to say.

[fizzlemynizzle]

that graph is a perfect example of what i'm talking about. i love how the vertical axis is set up so even a modest increase results in a huge spike. if it were a republican generated graph the vertical axis would be set up so there projections hardly stand above the actuals. it's manipulation..

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Coincidentally, I heard a Democratic Congresswoman from California on TV recite half of that list, practically word-for-word. Looks like yet another orchestrated DNC operation faithfully carried out by their loyal following.

Actually, it came from here. Not from the DNC.
It has spread extremely quickly, though. I sent it to the Kerry campaign, too.

[dialo]

Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001


Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?

MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.

Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002


Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002


The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002


Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002


So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002


Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002


I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Coincidentally, I heard a Democratic Congresswoman from California on TV recite half of that list, practically word-for-word. Looks like yet another orchestrated DNC operation faithfully carried out by their loyal following.

way to address the issues...

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Actually, it came from here. Not from the DNC.
It has spread extremely quickly, though. I sent it to the Kerry campaign, too.

Thanks for the link! I got this from that page:

Win One for the Flipper

By Marjorie Williams
Sunday, March 7, 2004; Page B07

I've been trying, really I have. As a charter member of the ABB Society -- Anybody But Bush -- I've tried not to fret over the alarmingly tautological nature of John Kerry's victory. He was inevitable because voters picked him to win because he had won over earlier voters and therefore must be a winner. I've tried not to worry over the fact that he has all the social bonhomie of one of Edith Wharton's ambivalent society stiffs. We know that some crucial part of the presidential electorate votes on impressions of likability, but I've assured myself that between now and November Kerry will warm up.

And I've labored to turn my eyes from his career-long opportunism, the knowledge that Bay State political junkies trade their favorite Kerry flip-flops like baseball cards. Bush is already having fun with Kerry's zigzags of the past three years alone: Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly "implemented." This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years. In fact, one might argue that Kerry is a poster boy for all the ways in which congressional Democrats have allowed themselves to be rolled by the Bush administration. But this is something I am trying hard not to notice about him.

It's been especially difficult, but I work to achieve a kind of amnesia about Kerry's incoherent and changing explanation of his position -- no, his positions -- concerning the crucial issue of Bush's war in Iraq.

Okay, so he's kicked away both a grand political opportunity and -- much more importantly -- any sense of confidence that he would lead the war on terrorism more wisely than Bush. But surely it's a coincidence that all of his war-related votes, going back to his vote against Bush pere's 1991 resolution for the Persian Gulf War, found him on the side of short-term political expedience?

I finally lost my grip, though, when I opened my newspaper a few days ago to read of Kerry's latest lunge in the direction of some politically feasible position on gay marriage. In general, Kerry, like most Democrats, has taken shelter in the mantra that (a) it's a matter that should be decided in the states, and (b) civil unions are the acceptable way to go about conferring equal rights on gays; marriage itself is off the table. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Democrats say, as if that took care of the matter. Outside of a religious context, of course, that statement is a prejudice rather than a policy -- a prejudice that, in many cases, the speaker does not actually hold.

But Kerry was managing this footwork just fine until Feb. 4, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state's constitution to require the option of gay marriage. Kerry responded by endorsing an amendment to the state's constitution that would forbid gay marriage but allow civil union. He was the only member of his congressional delegation to take this stance, for good reason: Endorsing a constitutional amendment at the state level seriously undermines the arguments for fighting an amendment at the federal level. One of the best arguments against forbidding gay marriage in the Constitution is that the spirit of the document is to confer rights, not confiscate them.

This more-than-theoretical move against gay marriage was at odds with Kerry's brave 1996 vote against the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act, which is easily one of the most principled votes he ever cast. He was one of only 14 senators to oppose it, while Bill Clinton, ever triangulating, cynically signed it into law.

But never mind. On Feb. 27, Kerry quietly told a group of unhappy gay donors that he would work to confer full federal benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file taxes jointly, and more than a thousand others, on gay couples joined by any state-sanctioned union -- which would of course include marriage. So while wishing to forbid gay marriage in his own state, he is promising to reward it in others.

To watch Kerry floundering in the impossible contradictions of this issue is to see starkly how little he is guided by core principle -- or even by a consistently wise sense of where his political interests lie. To respond to every unpleasant political stimulus that presents itself is to throw away the chance to make even an expedient long-term commitment to something.

There's no doubt that John Kerry has his good points. His heroism in Vietnam, though not the perfect magic amulet of Democratic fantasies, does give him one kind of alpha-dog dominance over President Bush. It sure feels refreshing, as a Democrat, to have a candidate whose claim to toughness doesn't seem slightly ridiculous.

But in eight out of nine Super Tuesday primaries -- even in his home state! -- Kerry voters who were acting on the belief that he offered the best chance of beating Bush outnumbered those who thought Kerry agreed with them on major issues. The one exception was Ohio, where the Issues camp outstripped the Beat Bush camp by four points.

Eight months is a long time for Bush to pile up a home-field advantage while Kerry's campaign decides how to fill in, complete and polish the invention that won the primaries. It's going to be hard to sustain, for so many months, the party's fond illusion that there is such a beast as "electability."

But I'm trying, I really am. Cover your eyes, and clap if you believe in Tinkerbell.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Thanks for the link! I got this from that page:

Win One for the Flipper

By Marjorie Williams
Sunday, March 7, 2004; Page B07

I've been trying, really I have. As a charter member of the ABB Society -- Anybody But Bush -- I've tried not to fret over the alarmingly tautological nature of John Kerry's victory. He was inevitable because voters picked him to win because he had won over earlier voters and therefore must be a winner. I've tried not to worry over the fact that he has all the social bonhomie of one of Edith Wharton's ambivalent society stiffs. We know that some crucial part of the presidential electorate votes on impressions of likability, but I've assured myself that between now and November Kerry will warm up.

And I've labored to turn my eyes from his career-long opportunism, the knowledge that Bay State political junkies trade their favorite Kerry flip-flops like baseball cards. Bush is already having fun with Kerry's zigzags of the past three years alone: Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly "implemented." This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years. In fact, one might argue that Kerry is a poster boy for all the ways in which congressional Democrats have allowed themselves to be rolled by the Bush administration. But this is something I am trying hard not to notice about him.

It's been especially difficult, but I work to achieve a kind of amnesia about Kerry's incoherent and changing explanation of his position -- no, his positions -- concerning the crucial issue of Bush's war in Iraq.

Okay, so he's kicked away both a grand political opportunity and -- much more importantly -- any sense of confidence that he would lead the war on terrorism more wisely than Bush. But surely it's a coincidence that all of his war-related votes, going back to his vote against Bush pere's 1991 resolution for the Persian Gulf War, found him on the side of short-term political expedience?

I finally lost my grip, though, when I opened my newspaper a few days ago to read of Kerry's latest lunge in the direction of some politically feasible position on gay marriage. In general, Kerry, like most Democrats, has taken shelter in the mantra that (a) it's a matter that should be decided in the states, and (b) civil unions are the acceptable way to go about conferring equal rights on gays; marriage itself is off the table. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Democrats say, as if that took care of the matter. Outside of a religious context, of course, that statement is a prejudice rather than a policy -- a prejudice that, in many cases, the speaker does not actually hold.

But Kerry was managing this footwork just fine until Feb. 4, when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state's constitution to require the option of gay marriage. Kerry responded by endorsing an amendment to the state's constitution that would forbid gay marriage but allow civil union. He was the only member of his congressional delegation to take this stance, for good reason: Endorsing a constitutional amendment at the state level seriously undermines the arguments for fighting an amendment at the federal level. One of the best arguments against forbidding gay marriage in the Constitution is that the spirit of the document is to confer rights, not confiscate them.

This more-than-theoretical move against gay marriage was at odds with Kerry's brave 1996 vote against the reprehensible Defense of Marriage Act, which is easily one of the most principled votes he ever cast. He was one of only 14 senators to oppose it, while Bill Clinton, ever triangulating, cynically signed it into law.

But never mind. On Feb. 27, Kerry quietly told a group of unhappy gay donors that he would work to confer full federal benefits, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file taxes jointly, and more than a thousand others, on gay couples joined by any state-sanctioned union -- which would of course include marriage. So while wishing to forbid gay marriage in his own state, he is promising to reward it in others.

To watch Kerry floundering in the impossible contradictions of this issue is to see starkly how little he is guided by core principle -- or even by a consistently wise sense of where his political interests lie. To respond to every unpleasant political stimulus that presents itself is to throw away the chance to make even an expedient long-term commitment to something.

There's no doubt that John Kerry has his good points. His heroism in Vietnam, though not the perfect magic amulet of Democratic fantasies, does give him one kind of alpha-dog dominance over President Bush. It sure feels refreshing, as a Democrat, to have a candidate whose claim to toughness doesn't seem slightly ridiculous.

But in eight out of nine Super Tuesday primaries -- even in his home state! -- Kerry voters who were acting on the belief that he offered the best chance of beating Bush outnumbered those who thought Kerry agreed with them on major issues. The one exception was Ohio, where the Issues camp outstripped the Beat Bush camp by four points.

Eight months is a long time for Bush to pile up a home-field advantage while Kerry's campaign decides how to fill in, complete and polish the invention that won the primaries. It's going to be hard to sustain, for so many months, the party's fond illusion that there is such a beast as "electability."

But I'm trying, I really am. Cover your eyes, and clap if you believe in Tinkerbell.

This thread is about bush, please stay on topic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
This thread is about bush, please stay on topic.

Heh you mean like every thread about Kerry that turns into a Bush bash?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
This thread is about bush, please stay on topic.

Gosh. I'm sorry. Did that bit of factual information about your candidate ruin this thread?
I didn't mean to interupt the Bush-bashing. If I promise not to post any more truths about Kerry in here, can I play? I did get the link to this information from the Bush-bashing web site, where the information posted in the first place came from. Why isn't that ok again?

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Gosh. I'm sorry. Did that bit of factual information about your candidate ruin this thread?
I didn't mean to interupt the Bush-bashing. If I promise not to post any more truths about Kerry in here, can I play? I did get the link to this information from the Bush-bashing web site, where the information posted in the first place came from. Why isn't that ok again?

Its a problem because this post was about bush flip flopping like I said before. The starter of this thread was not talking about both the kerry flopping and bush flopping, he was talking about the bush flopping.

you make it sound like i can't handle something being said about kerry that might be true, but you are one coming in here badmouthing kerry's flip flips instead of the actual topic of the thread. do you get my point? sometimes i am not clear(not being sarcastic). you are doing the same thing that you claimed I just did. you attacked kerry instead of addressing the issues at hand.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh you mean like every thread about Kerry that turns into a Bush bash?

If you notice, I try not to do that.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zachs:
Actually, it came from here. Not from the DNC.
It has spread extremely quickly, though. I sent it to the Kerry campaign, too.

Here's the only thing that will really matter though:

The last guy who got re-elected (Clinton) had economic numbers lower than Bush's, and didn't have 9/11 to have to contend with. I don't think in the long run bashing a growing economy is going to do much good, but I guess you've got to go with what you think you have.

ALSO...Kerry supporters know that the illumination of Kerry's inability to stick to a position hasn't even started to be exploited, AND he'll probably have to do more flip-flops in order to try to get elected since he's such a left-wing liberal normally.

The Democrats (and everyone else for that matter) would have been a lot better off had Lieberman or Edwards been the nominee. It's good that Dean got showed the door...but the wrong guy was there when the door opened in my opinion

[voodoo]

Whoa there Silver!

Joe Lieberman and John Edwards are both scum. Kerry is simply insecure about himself. Else why the long face? (bardum!)

Dean was the one that deserved the Democratic party nomination because without him ruffling up the party they would have had 0.000000001% chance of winning this fall. Now because of Dean they have 5% chance. They'd have won had they stood behind Howard Dean all the way.

Republicrats. Same difference.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Gosh. I'm sorry. Did that bit of factual information about your candidate ruin this thread?
I didn't mean to interupt the Bush-bashing. If I promise not to post any more truths about Kerry in here, can I play? I did get the link to this information from the Bush-bashing web site, where the information posted in the first place came from. Why isn't that ok again?

*SMACKDOWN*

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*SMACKDOWN*

hardy, he is guilty of exactly what he claims I am doing.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
hardy, he is guilty of exactly what he claims I am doing.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

There is no mechanism in place to challenge or appeal *SMACKDOWN*s.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I call 'em as I see 'em.

There is no mechanism in place to challenge or appeal *SMACKDOWN*s.

yeah, ok, whatever...

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Here's the only thing that will really matter though:

The last guy who got re-elected (Clinton) had economic numbers lower than Bush's, and didn't have 9/11 to have to contend with. I don't think in the long run bashing a growing economy is going to do much good, but I guess you've got to go with what you think you have.

ALSO...Kerry supporters know that the illumination of Kerry's inability to stick to a position hasn't even started to be exploited, AND he'll probably have to do more flip-flops in order to try to get elected since he's such a left-wing liberal normally.

The Democrats (and everyone else for that matter) would have been a lot better off had Lieberman or Edwards been the nominee. It's good that Dean got showed the door...but the wrong guy was there when the door opened in my opinion

While Kerry wasn't my choice, and I would have rather had someone else as the nominee, Bush can't keep attacking him for something which he himself is guilty of. Both Kerry and Bush have "flip-flopped". In fact, pretty much all politicians have "flip-flopped" on one issue or another. Therefore, it's a stupid thing to campaign on for both sides.

As for Clinton not having to deal with 9/11...no, that's true. He didn't have to deal with that particular attack, but he did have to deal with:the first WTC bombing (6 dead, 1,000 wounded), the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, (killed 19, injured 200 military personnel), the U.S. embassy bombing in Africa (224 killed, 5,000 injured), and the USS Cole bombing (killed 17, injured 39 US sailors). Clinton had plenty to deal with.

But nonetheless, Bill Clinton isn't running for President.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
...Bush can't keep attacking him for something which he himself is guilty of.

So when is Kerry going to authorize a full release of his military records?

[Spheric Harlot]

Bush's Flip Flops:

[tie]

Originally posted by Mithras:

[source]
That chart kicks so much a� I have nothing more to say.

LOL. See if you can spot the incompetent economic policy. I posted in a previous thread how Bush's one-year deficit predictions are always off by at least 50% (guess in which direction).

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So when is Kerry going to authorize a full release of his military records?

Don't know. Maybe you should email the Kerry campaign.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zachs:
Bush can't keep attacking him for something which he himself is guilty of.

I know that's what Kerry supporters hope and pray. But, it's simply logically fallacious.

EVERY politician has adjusted or changed positions if they've had a career that spans more than a couple of years. I think everyone understands that, and no one disputes that. The issue is, Kerry flips and flops on major issues as if he were caught in a wind storm. He's in a seperate leaque when it comes to strongly supporting one thing, then strongly opposing it later - and it's only going to get worse for him when his ultra-liberal voting record is trotted out during the coming campaign.

It's not as if you're comparing apples to apples, but it is clear that with these new talking points, that's what is being attempted since this is clearly a weak point with Kerry.

not having to deal with 9/11...no, that's true. He didn't have to deal with that particular attack, but he did have to deal with:the first WTC bombing (6 dead, 1,000 wounded), the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, (killed 19, injured 200 military personnel), the U.S. embassy bombing in Africa (224 killed, 5,000 injured), and the USS Cole bombing (killed 17, injured 39 US sailors). Clinton had plenty to deal with.

And his solution was what? Bombing an aspirin factory as Monica Lewinsky was being deposed?

[quote]But nonetheless, Bill Clinton isn't running for President. /QUOTE]

....but did win re-election with an economic record that is weaker than our economy is now. It's going to be hard to argue that post 9/11, that doing even better than the Glorious Bill Clinton, King of The Economy� is bad for the country. Of course, they WILL try.

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I know that's what Kerry supporters hope and pray. But, it's simply logically fallacious.

EVERY politician has adjusted or changed positions if they've had a career that spans more than a couple of years. I think everyone understands that, and no one disputes that. The issue is, Kerry flips and flops on major issues as if he were caught in a wind storm. He's in a seperate leaque when it comes to strongly supporting one thing, then strongly opposing it later - and it's only going to get worse for him when his ultra-liberal voting record is trotted out during the coming campaign.

It's not as if you're comparing apples to apples, but it is clear that with these new talking points, that's what is being attempted since this is clearly a weak point with Kerry.

OK. I know every politician does it. That's what I've said. The point of this thread was not to say that Bush is the only one who has. The point was was that Bush has said Kerry flip-flops. I offer proof that Bush has, too. SImple as that.

And if Bush wants to attack him for being a liberal, so be it. However, I personally would take it as a compliment:

Definition of "Liberalism" from merriam-webster.com:
"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties'

And his solution was what? Bombing an aspirin factory as Monica Lewinsky was being deposed?

Heh. I think my post from another thread would answer this best:

--------
What did Bill Clinton do? He tripled the FBI's antiterrorism budget, sought tough antiterrorism legislation, ordered stockpiling of smallpox and anthrax vaccines (extremely important post-9/11), signed an airport security bill. He gave the order to kill OBL in 1996, and began to plan to attack terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing. He ordered that $254 million of Taliban money be frozen, and even had money of OBL frozen as well.

Yet, Congress fought against these efforts.

Robert Oakley, a counterterrorism expert in the Reagan State Department, said "Overall, I give them very high marks" (WaPo) when asked about Clinton's efforts in national security.

Others praised Clinton. Newt Gingrich even said, "I think the president did exactly the right thing," and "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."
---------

....but did win re-election with an economic record that is weaker than our economy is now. It's going to be hard to argue that post 9/11, that doing even better than the Glorious Bill Clinton, King of The Economy� is bad for the country. Of course, they WILL try.

I forgot...how many jobs were created last month, again?

Oh, and this graph might be of interest to you:



I'll get more tomorrow...right now I'm too tired.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zachs:
he point was was that Bush has said Kerry flip-flops. I offer proof that Bush has, too. SImple as that.

Same old illogical game we've seen in the past 15 years or so.

"That guy said Bill Clinton lies, but look here where he told an untruth!"

It's an attempt to illogically draw equivalence from things that sound similar, but are not direct equivalents. It's the same as if Jeff Dahmer went on the stand and complained that his prosecutor once killed a bee that was buzzing nearby. Sorry...it's not likely to wash.

Again...as for the economy, here's all the important info the American public will need (and you can complain that Bill Clinton isn't running, but Bush most certainly can compare his record to the last guy re-elected and let people draw conclusions based on what they did then):

During the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040226.shtml

More people are working, for higher wages, more productivy with lower inflation as compared to the same time the guy he replaced got re-elected.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
I forgot...how many jobs were created last month, again?

Oh, and this graph might be of interest to you:



I'll get more tomorrow...right now I'm too tired.

"Music for America is a partisan, political nonprofit getting 1 million new progressive voters to participate in the 2004 elections. The country is headed in the wrong direction; our generation has the most at stake, and as long as we remain spectators, nothing will change. Through live concerts and an interactive website, we are connecting culture and politics, exposing political hypocrisies, and igniting a grassroots movement."

Sounds like a good non-biased source of FUD.

Good job.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
"Music for America is a partisan, political nonprofit getting 1 million new progressive voters to participate in the 2004 elections. The country is headed in the wrong direction; our generation has the most at stake, and as long as we remain spectators, nothing will change. Through live concerts and an interactive website, we are connecting culture and politics, exposing political hypocrisies, and igniting a grassroots movement."

Sounds like a good non-biased source of FUD.

Good job.

The graph was made by Music for America. The data was not.

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Same old illogical game we've seen in the past 15 years or so.

"That guy said Bill Clinton lies, but look here where he told an untruth!"

It's an attempt to illogically draw equivalence from things that sound similar, but are not direct equivalents. It's the same as if Jeff Dahmer went on the stand and complained that his prosecutor once killed a bee that was buzzing nearby. Sorry...it's not likely to wash.

Hmmm. OK, so apparently Bush can criticize Kerry for flip-flopping. But for anyone to do the same to Bush, that would just be stupid? Bush said Kerry flip-flopped. I say Bush flip-flopped. How are they not "direct equivalents"?

Again...as for the economy, here's all the important info the American public will need (and you can complain that Bill Clinton isn't running, but Bush most certainly can compare his record to the last guy re-elected and let people draw conclusions based on what they did then):

During the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040226.shtml

More people are working, for higher wages, more productivy with lower inflation as compared to the same time the guy he replaced got re-elected.

Maybe you'd like to take a look at a few of these graphs. (OMG! It was created by the Democrats! It MUST be a complete fabrication! ) Here are a few:







Not only that, but only 39% support Bush on the economy:

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey. Bush's standing hit new lows in crucial areas such as the economy (39 percent support him), Iraq (46 percent) and the budget deficit (30 percent).