John Kerry Flip-Flops or not?

ShareShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Reddit

More important than this video (to me), is how those of you who are anti-Bush view Bush on flip-flopping. What are some recent issues that you guys feel he has changed his stance on?

Play the video on the left…thanks Stephen

This entry was posted in Old Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to John Kerry Flip-Flops or not?

  1. Frank says:

    I’ve got strong feelings on this one. First, selective editing is no less disengenuous when done by Ed Gillespie than it is when done by Michael Moore. Chris Matthews had 2 or 3 segments on various shows confronting Bush officials on taking a Kerry quote from his show totally out of context on that video. Second, trotting out quotes from 1998 and expecting them to necessarily pertain in 2002 is ridiculous. If we wanna play that game, we can just as easily trot out Bush saying in 2000 he doesn’t believe our troops should be used for nation building, we should have a more humble foreign policy etc etc etc. Times change as do facts and circumstances. Third, i’ve had it up to here with the GOP also trotting out the “i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it” line. Something that’s not just disingenuous, but downright hypocritical. The reason he voted for it before voting against it is because he had to vote on it twice. And why did he have to vote on it twice? Because when he voted for it, the Republicans voted against it. And why did they vote against it? Because Bush threatened to veto it if it passed. So to use that to paint John Kerry as a “flip flopper” is garbage. The issue concerning the vote on the so called “war resolution” (it was no such thing in reality) is more than i feel like getting into here. Just suffice it to say that if we remember the circumstances about why that resolution was even offered up, it paints a different picture than whether Kerry approved of the actual war or not. A big problem in this country is we all suffer from a severe case of ADD.

    And let’s get one thing straight. If John Kerry is a flip flopper, and if John Kerry is elected President, then being a flip flopper will make him no different than the 43 Presidents that came before him – current one included.

    Sometimes i think Bush’s biggest problem is that he won’t flip flop even when the facts warrant. It’s as if he comes to his decision on what he wants to do, and only then tries to figure out how to justify it. I guess his defenders would call that “going with your gut”. Tax cuts are a perfect example. In the last election he ran on a platform of tax cuts because the economy was so good. Then, soon as taking office, he realizes the economy is starting to slow down so then we need tax cuts because the economy is so poor. And let’s not even get into the shifting rationale for the war.

    And hugs to my almost favorite niece.

  2. Derek Lidbom says:

    I knew I shouldn’t have posted the link to the video with my question. Frankie, one of the first things I thought of when I watched it was Michael Moore, believe it or not. For the same reason you did. Possibly deceptive editing. Also, when they were pulling quotes from 1998, I was thinking the same thing as you again…”As specific as these clips are, couldn’t they easily change with more knowledge?” I’m convinced almost all of the political ads (that refer to the opposition) are furthering their cause based on knowing that everyone quickly forgets the circumstances surrounding the decision being shown. That aside, I would like to have some insight on how Bush has “flip-flopped” recently.

  3. Frank says:

    Oh, i don’t know. He flip flopped on steel tariffs for one. And a more current example clearly would be his attitude toward 527 groups. He benefitted greatly from 527’s in 2000, to my knowledge (correct me if i’m wrong) argued against eliminating them when McCain-Feingold was being debated and now he wants them gone. In fact, he even goes so far as to suggest he thought McCain-Feingold would solve the problem. Which if true means he didn’t even understand the law he signed. But that’s another issue entirely.

    Now, i don’t remember every detail about who said what, but i do remember that the over riding argument against McCain Feingold was that it was unconstitutional in restricting free speech. Something Bush now apparently feels it doesn’t do quite well enough. So i’m pretty sure that somewhere in there is one big flip flop.

    The “can’t win it (the war on terror)” thing is petty, but that said, if Kerry had said something like that he’d be toast.

    Though frankly, if we’re using literal flip flops, you could even point to tax cuts (again, in addition to what i said in my first post). He signed the law that says the tax cuts aren’t permanent, yet now he wants to make them permanent. That also sounds like a flip flop to me.

    I’ll be the first to admit that my examples are absolutely petty. But they are real. Which just goes to show how silly this whole issue is of Kerry being a flip flopper. And it’s a sad commentary on American politics that this can get such play. It’s nothing more than cheap marketing, and that’s not what the Presidency should be about. I guess that would be my main point on this.

    By the way, did you know that George Bush once ran for congress as a pro choice candidate? Flip flop? Something to ponder.

  4. Frank says:

    Hey Derek.

    I realize it’s become a dead issue here, but if you want a pretty good (though perhaps one sided – we know how that works) rundown of several Bush inconsistencies – flip flops, if you will – feel free to try here. I don’t vouch for the accuracy of it all, but it’s no less credible than if i’d have just given the rundown myself.

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_09_05_americablog_archive.html#109449958446191882

    Hope you enjoyed the holiday and lookin’ forward to seeing you guys when you can come up again.

  5. Derek Lidbom says:

    Dead? I hope not…:-D…maybe when people are bored at work today they’ll comment. Thanks for the link…I’ll check it out later.

    The holiday was good, but busy with a new dog.

    -Derek

  6. Derek Lidbom says:

    Frankie,

    I just took a look at that list, and reading it was quite frustrating (probably like you watching the video). Some of them were interesting and definitely merit further research. Most of them I found were faulted in one way or another. Those of you who read this list (or any list from EITHER side discussing inconsistencies), keep these questions in mind:
    1.
    Is the first statement/viewpoint necessarily inconsistent with the second?
    Example from the list Frankie linked to:
    “CANDIDATE BUSH SUPPORTS REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE.”
    vs.
    “BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE. ”
    While the quotes below the taglines deserve research, those two “summaries” of the viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. You can support reducing emissions and still oppose mandatory caps on them.

    2.
    Do the actual quotes contradict each other?
    Example:
    “Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it’s a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
    vs.
    “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]
    Those two statements don’t contradict each other…there is a matter of principle that White House staffers don’t testify. But, these were special circumstances and she had to.

    3.
    Is the source biased? For example, text copied from a news source like The New York Times is far less reliable than a quote from the individual or his representatives.
    Example:
    “The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency.” [NY Times, 1/29/04]
    Hopefully it’s obvious how much of that quote is (probably) nference by the Times and how much is fact.

    Just some thoughts on critical reading. I’ll readily admit that I don’t know the context of some of these quotes, and that could work against me, but I would think that if it would, more of the quote would have been included to further condemn Bush.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *