Full Version: Is Kerry the Flip-Flopper he is made out to be?
From early on the Bush campaign has used a theme to characterize John Kerry as a flip flopper. I consider myself better informed than the average American and as informed as your average participant on AD (many of course are much more informed than I am), but I here the name calling a lot but I don't see it connected with too much damning evidence.
Let's hash them out,
the question for debate is:
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Sep 2 2004, 05:00 PM)
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacente...ad.aspx?ID=2439
GWB's site does a good job to outline many of his flip-flops...but some of them are out of context and others cheap shots. If you look at some of the dates for the sources, they are a little off from a timeline point of view...but they still show Kerry taking two sides of an issue.
There are some justifiable position changes that Kerry has made during his Senate career and others that are not. The most notable flop is Kerry's vote against the first Persian Gulf War where we had a huge coalition and UN support. I think that is something that nobody on either side of the political spectrum can defend. He has voted against a very large number of military technologies that have been so essential in the state of modern warfare. An extremely amazing flip-flop that surprised me was the situation with the Israeli Security Fence. While speaking to each party, he told them exactly what they wanted to hear and it was a clear contradiction.
So basically, it is my opinion that the most blatant examples of Kerry flip-flops that are just indefensible were:
- The Israeli Security Fence
- The First Persian Gulf War
- The re-deployment of our troops in Europe and Asia
Kerry has allegedly changed his position on the Patriot Act and other social issues. The Iraq War is arguable... i understand that there was a part of the Funding bill dealing with tax breaks...but it is still tough for Kerry to defend that vote where he didnt support funding for our troops.
I don't view kerry's stance on the Israeli Security fence issue as a flip-flop. It is very possible to believe that Israel's actions are legitimate and still believe that they are a barrier to peace. Israel is within it's rights to make decisions regarding its own security, but it doesn't mean that those actions are going to lead to a peaceful resolution.
Kerry's vote to authorize war and then his refusal to fund it is the big one that stands out in my mind.
As much as he wants to finesse it, his original vote was an authorization to give the President the green light to go to war. He had to know what that vote was for.
Kerry wants to massage his vote to mean something other than what it meant. C'est la vie...or in this case, that's politics.
But then, when it came time to fund the troops, he voted against it after voting in committee for the same bill that was funded another way.
I guess in his mind it's fine that he voted for it before he voted against it, but when it comes down to what really happened: he voted against the funding. Once he lost the committee battle on the funding aspect, he should have known that the funding bill would pass. He should have been on board. A huge, huge mistake in my estimation. It came amid Howard Dean's run at hammering Kerry for voting for the war. This vote was a purely political calculation and a bad one at that.
In my view, the President should lead and his Party (and the country) should follow, not the other way around. The President must set his agenda and then try to get it through, not test the political waters to see how some polling focus group perceives his choices.
As much as he wants to finesse it, his original vote was an authorization to give the President the green light to go to war. He had to know what that vote was for.
Kerry wants to massage his vote to mean something other than what it meant. C'est la vie...or in this case, that's politics.
But then, when it came time to fund the troops, he voted against it after voting in committee for the same bill that was funded another way.
I guess in his mind it's fine that he voted for it before he voted against it, but when it comes down to what really happened: he voted against the funding. Once he lost the committee battle on the funding aspect, he should have known that the funding bill would pass. He should have been on board. A huge, huge mistake in my estimation. It came amid Howard Dean's run at hammering Kerry for voting for the war. This vote was a purely political calculation and a bad one at that.
In my view, the President should lead and his Party (and the country) should follow, not the other way around. The President must set his agenda and then try to get it through, not test the political waters to see how some polling focus group perceives his choices.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 3 2004, 09:39 AM)
Kerry's vote to authorize war and then his refusal to fund it is the big one that stands out in my mind.
As much as he wants to finesse it, his original vote was an authorization to give the President the green light to go to war. He had to know what that vote was for.
As much as he wants to finesse it, his original vote was an authorization to give the President the green light to go to war. He had to know what that vote was for.
The ad, which started airing in March, portrayed Kerry as a flip flopper and created an illusion that is not entirely supported by fact.
The non-partisan factcheck.org analyzes the ad and the charge that seems to have stuck to Kerry.
QUOTE
The Bush ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package.
The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package.
Information edited from article by poster.
QUOTE
For the record, the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155
To add what BoF has described the reason why he voted against the $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan was because he tried to get an amendment passed having the $87 billion being payed for by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1%. Which shows that he is more responsible then this administration or republican congress by trying to find a way to pay for it, rather then just adding to our deficit. Because this is the first time in history that during a war our government not only gave a tax cut, but also decided not to repeal any or all of it in order to pay for a war or other government responsiblities.
QUOTE(Cadman @ Sep 3 2004, 10:34 AM)
To add what BoF has described the reason why he voted against the $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan was because he tried to get an amendment passed having the $87 billion being payed for by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1%. Which shows that he is more responsible then this administration or republican congress by trying to find a way to pay for it, rather then just adding to our deficit. Because this is the first time in history that during a war our government not only gave a tax cut, but also decided not to repeal any or all of it in order to pay for a war or other government responsiblities.
I see. So John Kerry was more interested in raising taxes on the American people than he was in providing our soldiers with needed resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that is a message he should share with the American people.
It is IMO more honest to take care of spending and the revenues that come with it in terms of cuts or tax hikes. Kerry has been willing to say that if we are increasing our spending we need to pay for it my allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, at least in part. I do not think he has flip flopped on this issue.
This is not saying that raising taxes is a higher priority than providing equipment for troops. Sooner or later we have to find a way to pay for our soaring expenses. Is spend and spend, actually a better system than tax and spend?
I believe it is fair for Kerry to claim that he wants American troops to be well provided for and not like the one spending bill that he is provided with. I personally think it would have been fair and open to work out a bipartisan spending bill. It is hard to find a anti-soldier politician, despite claims to the contrary. However, as a presidential candidate he needs to present a good reason that he felt compelled to vote against that particular package.
This is not saying that raising taxes is a higher priority than providing equipment for troops. Sooner or later we have to find a way to pay for our soaring expenses. Is spend and spend, actually a better system than tax and spend?
I believe it is fair for Kerry to claim that he wants American troops to be well provided for and not like the one spending bill that he is provided with. I personally think it would have been fair and open to work out a bipartisan spending bill. It is hard to find a anti-soldier politician, despite claims to the contrary. However, as a presidential candidate he needs to present a good reason that he felt compelled to vote against that particular package.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Sep 3 2004, 10:56 AM)
It is IMO more honest to take care of spending and the revenues that come with it in terms of cuts or tax hikes. Kerry has been willing to say that if we are increasing our spending we need to pay for it my allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, at least in part. I do not think he has flip flopped on this issue.
This is not saying that raising taxes is a higher priority than providing equipment for troops. Sooner or later we have to find a way to pay for our soaring expenses. Is spend and spend, actually a better system than tax and spend?
I believe it is fair for Kerry to claim that he wants American troops to be well provided for and not like the one spending bill that he is provided with. I personally think it would have been fair and open to work out a bipartisan spending bill. It is hard to find a anti-soldier politician, despite claims to the contrary. However, as a presidential candidate he needs to present a good reason that he felt compelled to vote against that particular package.
This is not saying that raising taxes is a higher priority than providing equipment for troops. Sooner or later we have to find a way to pay for our soaring expenses. Is spend and spend, actually a better system than tax and spend?
I believe it is fair for Kerry to claim that he wants American troops to be well provided for and not like the one spending bill that he is provided with. I personally think it would have been fair and open to work out a bipartisan spending bill. It is hard to find a anti-soldier politician, despite claims to the contrary. However, as a presidential candidate he needs to present a good reason that he felt compelled to vote against that particular package.
I agree with much you say, Eeyore, although I would hasten to point out to you that the bill that was passed was indeed "bi-partisan". It received 80+ votes in the US Senate and these days, that's about as bi-partisan as you can get.
However, on the issue of "flip-flopping" this is an illustration of the failure I believe of the Kerry campaign to address his voting record in the US Senate. Rather than to come out and say, "I voted against that funding because there was no mechanism to offset that spending" and perhaps discuss his ideas for paying for it, he instead says, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it". Now, I'm sorry, but that sound byte is just too good to pass up!
No doubt some day an elderly John Kerry will be sitting in his mansion on Cape Cod, drinking fine French wine and munching on Brie and reflect on that statement with a rueful memory of what might have been. Perhaps he will even find a chuckle or two in it, but I suspect it's not terribly funny to him at the moment.
Aquilla, can you post a single statement without relying on tired stereotypes and backhanded insults? I'm just curious.
I mean, call me crazy, but I never see you make smug references to the incredible wealth of the Bush clan; yet you feel free to trot out the cliched commentary on Kerry's wealth and his french connections. Perhaps if you were to dial down the partisan mudslinging we could have more informative debates.
Ok, so you've admitted in your last post that Kerry isn't the flip-flopper that he is being made out to be. That's progress. Could you have not said that more clearly, without using every opportunity you have to put down his campaign? Need I remind you, we are not here to campaign but to debate intelligently.
I don't mean this to be insulting but you are contributing to the decline of political discourse. We all agree that "sound bytes" make for poor politics. Perhaps then you should stop harping on it and talk about the issues. Does Kerry flip-flop? You've said that in this case he didn't really. Why don't you stop playing the 'sound-byte' game?
I mean, call me crazy, but I never see you make smug references to the incredible wealth of the Bush clan; yet you feel free to trot out the cliched commentary on Kerry's wealth and his french connections. Perhaps if you were to dial down the partisan mudslinging we could have more informative debates.
QUOTE
However, on the issue of "flip-flopping" this is an illustration of the failure I believe of the Kerry campaign to address his voting record in the US Senate.
Ok, so you've admitted in your last post that Kerry isn't the flip-flopper that he is being made out to be. That's progress. Could you have not said that more clearly, without using every opportunity you have to put down his campaign? Need I remind you, we are not here to campaign but to debate intelligently.
QUOTE
Rather than to come out and say, "I voted against that funding because there was no mechanism to offset that spending" and perhaps discuss his ideas for paying for it, he instead says, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it". Now, I'm sorry, but that sound byte is just too good to pass up!
I don't mean this to be insulting but you are contributing to the decline of political discourse. We all agree that "sound bytes" make for poor politics. Perhaps then you should stop harping on it and talk about the issues. Does Kerry flip-flop? You've said that in this case he didn't really. Why don't you stop playing the 'sound-byte' game?
Cheney, when he was in the Congress, voted for the same defense spending cuts that Kerry did. At the time it seemed appropriate. Heck, Bush I felt the spending should be pulled back as well. Of course, the context has been conveniently "forgotten" in the quest to discredit the Democratic nominee. It is dishonest.
As far as the $87 billion spending package, let's have a look at it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
$87 Billion War Request Details Spending
Democrats Challenge Policy of Higher Funding for Iraqis Than for Americans
Democrats were wondering how in the devil the country would be able to finance this, not whether it was right to provide body armor for all of the troops. Of course, in the heat of the election, this fact has been conveniently forgotten.
As far as the $87 billion spending package, let's have a look at it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
$87 Billion War Request Details Spending
Democrats Challenge Policy of Higher Funding for Iraqis Than for Americans
QUOTE
Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, issued a report showing how much the administration would pay to meet Iraqis' needs compared with Americans'. The budget proposal allocates $157 per Iraqi for sewage improvements, compared with $14 per American, for example. The administration is devoting $38 per Iraqi for hospitals, compared with $3.30 per American.
Bush's "vision for Iraq is precisely opposite his vision for the United States," Obey said. "We also need to have a balance in the budgets between what we're doing abroad and what we're doing here at home."
<snip>
The war request offers not much hope of a quick resolution. Administration officials say the request envisions no change from the 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Kuwait. Indeed, the president is seeking $2.2 billion to finance additional military reserve and National Guard mobilizations.
Bush's "vision for Iraq is precisely opposite his vision for the United States," Obey said. "We also need to have a balance in the budgets between what we're doing abroad and what we're doing here at home."
<snip>
The war request offers not much hope of a quick resolution. Administration officials say the request envisions no change from the 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Kuwait. Indeed, the president is seeking $2.2 billion to finance additional military reserve and National Guard mobilizations.
Democrats were wondering how in the devil the country would be able to finance this, not whether it was right to provide body armor for all of the troops. Of course, in the heat of the election, this fact has been conveniently forgotten.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Sep 3 2004, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE(Cadman @ Sep 3 2004, 10:34 AM)
To add what BoF has described the reason why he voted against the $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan was because he tried to get an amendment passed having the $87 billion being payed for by rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1%. Which shows that he is more responsible then this administration or republican congress by trying to find a way to pay for it, rather then just adding to our deficit. Because this is the first time in history that during a war our government not only gave a tax cut, but also decided not to repeal any or all of it in order to pay for a war or other government responsiblities.
I see. So John Kerry was more interested in raising taxes on the American people than he was in providing our soldiers with needed resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that is a message he should share with the American people.
Wow Aquilla nice way to put that most admirable political slant on the issue like always. Please show me where Kerry was not willing to have the troops supported, if the votes came down to his vote for passage I believe he would have voted for it. But since it was not his vote that would change the outcome he made a protest vote which he stated at the time why he voted against it, because he thinks we should pay for it. And by the way the need resources like body armor why were they not given it from the start. Oh by the way I remember the administration saying that the Iraq oil would be paying for the reconstruction.
Iraq oil will pay for this
QUOTE
Budget Director Mitch Daniels- On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion
The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld- “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz- “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld- “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz- “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
So far we have spent $136 billion on Iraq war and its still going up.
The Opportunity Costs of the Iraq War
QUOTE
The "Opportunity Cost of the Iraq War" report reveals that for the cost of the Iraq war to date, the United States could have undertaken 18 major new projects to strengthen its security in the world and at home. These include:
Adding two new divisions to the Army
Putting 100,000 new police officers on the nation's streets
Doubling the size of the Firefighters Grant Program
Doubling America's Special Operations forces
Undertaking significant improvements to safeguard ports
Funding important initiatives to safeguard loose nuclear weapons
Adding two new divisions to the Army
Putting 100,000 new police officers on the nation's streets
Doubling the size of the Firefighters Grant Program
Doubling America's Special Operations forces
Undertaking significant improvements to safeguard ports
Funding important initiatives to safeguard loose nuclear weapons
KERRY CALLS FOR SHARED SACRIFICE BY WEALTHIEST 1% OF AMERICANS TO PAY FOR $87 BILLION IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL
BUSH-CHENEY AD FACT CHECK
Let's remember to stick to the issues and stop making personal comments about each other. It goes against the spirit of AD. Be civil to each other.
TOPICS:
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
TOPICS:
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
My goodness! I seem to have hit a bit of a nerve here. Such invective for such a simple observation. 
If John Kerry wants to explain his vote on the $87 billion, he is free to do that. He has the political stage, he gets news coverage, let him explain it. Let him tell the truth about that vote.... if he dares. Personally, I think I understand perfectly why he voted no on that bill and it has nothing to do with tax increases. It has to do with a guy named Howard Dean and what Dean was doing at the time to Kerry in the polls. That's why I think he made that vote, others may very well disagree and that's why we call it a "debate".
I have for months now here in this forum been challenging John Kerry to define himself as more than simply a guy who served in Vietnam. He has been a US Senator for 20 years and he has a record of service there far longer and far more relevant to this election than his 4 month record in Vietnam. I have repeatedly stated that if John Kerry refuses to define himself, then the Bush campaign will do it for him and that has been exactly what has happened. Part of that definition has been to point to inconsistancies between what John Kerry says he'll do as President and what he has done as a Senator. If he helps the Bush campaign out along with way with a ridiculous statement like the one on the $87 billion vote, that's his problem. Goodness knows we've heard plenty of fun made of President Bush over some of the things he's said.
Kerry's record in the Senate is relevant. And, if he doesn't want to talk about it, ok, that's his choice. But, we will.
If John Kerry wants to explain his vote on the $87 billion, he is free to do that. He has the political stage, he gets news coverage, let him explain it. Let him tell the truth about that vote.... if he dares. Personally, I think I understand perfectly why he voted no on that bill and it has nothing to do with tax increases. It has to do with a guy named Howard Dean and what Dean was doing at the time to Kerry in the polls. That's why I think he made that vote, others may very well disagree and that's why we call it a "debate".
I have for months now here in this forum been challenging John Kerry to define himself as more than simply a guy who served in Vietnam. He has been a US Senator for 20 years and he has a record of service there far longer and far more relevant to this election than his 4 month record in Vietnam. I have repeatedly stated that if John Kerry refuses to define himself, then the Bush campaign will do it for him and that has been exactly what has happened. Part of that definition has been to point to inconsistancies between what John Kerry says he'll do as President and what he has done as a Senator. If he helps the Bush campaign out along with way with a ridiculous statement like the one on the $87 billion vote, that's his problem. Goodness knows we've heard plenty of fun made of President Bush over some of the things he's said.
Kerry's record in the Senate is relevant. And, if he doesn't want to talk about it, ok, that's his choice. But, we will.
Does any of this matter if john kerry isn't going to bring any of this up?
Does he bother to defend a single decision or point out the inconstancies and out right hypocrisy of Bush and Cheney?
No he doesn't, instead he keeps whining about the Swift Boat garbage. He couldn't have given them any more credibility if they had gotten a photo of him in Hawaii that one Christmas day.
Are the democrats capable of even the most simple form of political campaign these days?
Pathetic.
Better not be too suprised when Bush makes Kerry look like Mondale.
On second thought, Relieve Mr Kerry for incompetence, promote Edwards and bring Obama out of the Minor Leagues. I don't see any other way for the Dems to win.
Oh well at least i'll get my taxes back and will just have to hope Bush's dreams of a New Crusades for the Future never comes to pass.
Does he bother to defend a single decision or point out the inconstancies and out right hypocrisy of Bush and Cheney?
No he doesn't, instead he keeps whining about the Swift Boat garbage. He couldn't have given them any more credibility if they had gotten a photo of him in Hawaii that one Christmas day.
Are the democrats capable of even the most simple form of political campaign these days?
Pathetic.
Better not be too suprised when Bush makes Kerry look like Mondale.
On second thought, Relieve Mr Kerry for incompetence, promote Edwards and bring Obama out of the Minor Leagues. I don't see any other way for the Dems to win.
Oh well at least i'll get my taxes back and will just have to hope Bush's dreams of a New Crusades for the Future never comes to pass.
QUOTE
Personally, I think I understand perfectly why he voted no on that bill and it has nothing to do with tax increases. It has to do with a guy named Howard Dean and what Dean was doing at the time to Kerry in the polls. That's why I think he made that vote, others may very well disagree and that's why we call it a "debate".
Then lets debate.
You probably mean that John Kerry voted against the 87 billion dollars so that he could look like the anti-war candidate and thus steal some thunder from Dean.
If that is the case, Kerry would have to vote against funding no matter what. It wouldn't matter if the tax roll back plan amendment went through, because a vote for that would be just as pro-war as a vote for funding through bigger deficits.
Yet, if he voted for that amendment (something that wouldn't make you look anti-war), he would run the risk of looking pro-war! So if he was really trying to look like the anti-war candidate, why did he vote for it?
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
my biggest objection to KERRY is the way he turn coated on veterans (SBVFT ads aside) then turned into a hero for his duty, to me its a huge flip-flop.his vote against the $87 billion funding for our troops is a close #2 even if he rationalized it as a way to roll back taxes for 1% he still knew how badly the military NEEDED that money and shouldn't have used their safety as a bargaining chip.
I was born and raised in BOSTON so I know A LOT about KERRY.thats enough for me to NOT vote for him, but in truth I was leaning towards DEAN.
His being for and then against the patriot act is another example of a flip-flop and for purely election reasons.
I don't think the ISRAELI SECURITY FENCE as a flip-flop more of him trying to be impartial after he supported it.
GOODLUCK
my biggest objection to KERRY is the way he turn coated on veterans (SBVFT ads aside) then turned into a hero for his duty, to me its a huge flip-flop.his vote against the $87 billion funding for our troops is a close #2 even if he rationalized it as a way to roll back taxes for 1% he still knew how badly the military NEEDED that money and shouldn't have used their safety as a bargaining chip.
I was born and raised in BOSTON so I know A LOT about KERRY.thats enough for me to NOT vote for him, but in truth I was leaning towards DEAN.
His being for and then against the patriot act is another example of a flip-flop and for purely election reasons.
I don't think the ISRAELI SECURITY FENCE as a flip-flop more of him trying to be impartial after he supported it.
GOODLUCK
That vote against the 87 billion dollars was a vote against allowing the administration to throw America taxpayers money away to U.S. private contarctors in Iraq in the disguise of giving it to the Iraqi people. The issue was over whether some of the money (I think 20 billion) should be a loan or a grant.
We all know a grant does not have to be re-paid. Kerry did not want that money to be given freely without oversight from Congress.
The administration plays off the fact that most Americans don't pay much attention to the details of any congressional bill that is passed (which is true). And guess what, they can go around saying Kerry was against the funding of the troops.
But the real problem isn't the administration spinning the facts, its the reality that the American people don't bother to educate themselves over some of the laws that are passed from Congress. As a result, you have stories that Kerry is a flip-flopper instead of understanding why he voted against the bill.
Bottom line, Americans need to start paying attention to whats going on in Washington, D.C.
We all know a grant does not have to be re-paid. Kerry did not want that money to be given freely without oversight from Congress.
QUOTE
BUSH THREATENED TO VETO $87 BILLION PACKAGE ON ISSUE OF ALLOCATING GRANTS OR LOANS TO IRAQIS. "Key senators reversed course yesterday and voted to make an $18.4 billion reconstruction package for Iraq entirely in the form of grants rather than loans, as House-Senate negotiators worked their way through President Bush's $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 16 to 13 vote represented a significant victory for Bush, who had threatened to veto the bill if Congress insisted on making Iraq repay some of the money."
The administration plays off the fact that most Americans don't pay much attention to the details of any congressional bill that is passed (which is true). And guess what, they can go around saying Kerry was against the funding of the troops.
But the real problem isn't the administration spinning the facts, its the reality that the American people don't bother to educate themselves over some of the laws that are passed from Congress. As a result, you have stories that Kerry is a flip-flopper instead of understanding why he voted against the bill.
Bottom line, Americans need to start paying attention to whats going on in Washington, D.C.
QUOTE(holyjohnson @ Sep 3 2004, 04:49 PM)
his vote against the $87 billion funding for our troops is a close #2 even if he rationalized it as a way to roll back taxes for 1% he still knew how badly the military NEEDED that money and shouldn't have used their safety as a bargaining chip.
holyjohnson sort of like how Bush had voiced that if the amendment to roll back the top 1% tax bracket he would veto it, that seems like Bush was also using the bill as a bargaining chip to get only what he wanted.
I totally agree with you cgorham about the populace needs to become better educated on what's going on in Washington D.C.. I actually started watching more closely after Clinton got elected, but became even more watchful after what the republicans were doing to Clinton thru the congress and the independent investigations. I guess that is one thing I can thank the republicans for
making me become more informed of what they are doing.
Kerry's problem may be Senatorial Disease. Every stand is nuanced and shaded. Casual observance, and even common sense, may well come to the conclusion that he flip-flops. The general public will not tolerate a filibuster to explain his seemingly opposing stances.
If a senator was going to stand on principle he would perhaps be best served by keeping an amendment for tax purposes separate from the funding of troops and let each issue stand on it's own. Surely he could find support enough from the remaining 99% to squeeze the 1%.
Or if a senator was going to say we don't have enough allies in the theatre in Iraq tell us how many would be enough. He pointed to Desert Storm as an example of a better coalition, yet voted against it. Give us the number.
We are a simple people with an itchy remote thumb and Seinfeld re-runs to watch. We are products of American education. Get to the point, Senator. KISSenator. Like Clinton did.
If a senator was going to stand on principle he would perhaps be best served by keeping an amendment for tax purposes separate from the funding of troops and let each issue stand on it's own. Surely he could find support enough from the remaining 99% to squeeze the 1%.
Or if a senator was going to say we don't have enough allies in the theatre in Iraq tell us how many would be enough. He pointed to Desert Storm as an example of a better coalition, yet voted against it. Give us the number.
We are a simple people with an itchy remote thumb and Seinfeld re-runs to watch. We are products of American education. Get to the point, Senator. KISSenator. Like Clinton did.
I covered this issue at length in another post and my anti-Sean Hannity blog (Hannity Insanity -- selfish plug). Well, I covered the $87 billion vote. It seems to be ignored that the Senate passed a $74 billion appropriations bill in March 2003. This vote passed 93-0 (however, I will criticize John Kerry for not voting on this bill). A few months later, President Bush requested an additional $87 billion. Combined, it would make it one of the costliest wars in history (adjusted for inflation). Senator Kerry was rather outspoken on giving the President a blank check for spending when it was reported by former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer that Iraq would fund their own reconstruction efforts. Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels (the first of the Bush adminstration to resign) said the Iraq war would cost about $60 billion.
One amendment (S.AMDT 1826) to the $87 billion bill was to use Iraqi oil profits to fund the reconstruction efforts (approximately $20 billion of the total funding). It was rejected (Kerry didn't vote--surprisingly, it was rejected by most of the Senate Democrats). Kerry's amendment was to pay for it by rescinding Bush's tax cuts temporarily for people earning over $400,000/year.
I have two questions:
1) If $87 billion was to fund military armor, what was the $74 billion for? Wasn't it enough to cover body armor??
2) Why doesn't Kerry vote? Isn't that his job?
As a flip-flopper, all politicians could be labeled as such. Even President Bush. In 2000, Bush said marital choices should be a state's right and then promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 2000, Bush said he would not engage in nation building. In 2004, we're in the quagmire of nation building. No politician is free from this.
Lastly, Kerry has been criticized for voting to cut defense spending considerably, particularly with his 1994 Kerry Amendment which would remove about $6 billion from weapons programs. The weapons he voted to cut funding for? Part of the "Star Wars" plan. In his 1992 State of the Union address, then President George H.W. Bush said we no longer required sea-based anti-missile systems. So perhaps Kerry was just following up on Bush's request? When have we ever been attacked by missile? It seems absurd to spend so much money on a program which has yet to be proven effective.
Anyway, is Kerry the flip-flopper he is made out to be? No, I don't think so. I think he doesn't explain his positions very well. I think it will ultimately cost him the election. I think his absences will harm him considerably (though Bush won't bring this up, lest we try to find out where he was during his National Guard duties). That's just my opinion though.
One amendment (S.AMDT 1826) to the $87 billion bill was to use Iraqi oil profits to fund the reconstruction efforts (approximately $20 billion of the total funding). It was rejected (Kerry didn't vote--surprisingly, it was rejected by most of the Senate Democrats). Kerry's amendment was to pay for it by rescinding Bush's tax cuts temporarily for people earning over $400,000/year.
I have two questions:
1) If $87 billion was to fund military armor, what was the $74 billion for? Wasn't it enough to cover body armor??
2) Why doesn't Kerry vote? Isn't that his job?
As a flip-flopper, all politicians could be labeled as such. Even President Bush. In 2000, Bush said marital choices should be a state's right and then promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 2000, Bush said he would not engage in nation building. In 2004, we're in the quagmire of nation building. No politician is free from this.
Lastly, Kerry has been criticized for voting to cut defense spending considerably, particularly with his 1994 Kerry Amendment which would remove about $6 billion from weapons programs. The weapons he voted to cut funding for? Part of the "Star Wars" plan. In his 1992 State of the Union address, then President George H.W. Bush said we no longer required sea-based anti-missile systems. So perhaps Kerry was just following up on Bush's request? When have we ever been attacked by missile? It seems absurd to spend so much money on a program which has yet to be proven effective.
Anyway, is Kerry the flip-flopper he is made out to be? No, I don't think so. I think he doesn't explain his positions very well. I think it will ultimately cost him the election. I think his absences will harm him considerably (though Bush won't bring this up, lest we try to find out where he was during his National Guard duties). That's just my opinion though.
It may be true that all politicians can be called f-f-ers, and they all are. The question is which ones do the charges stick against?
I think it is the ones who have no other identifying traits. Show me where he took a stand and resolutely maintained it.
Show me his signature achievements from a long political life. Dazzle me with his personality. What am I supposed to think when I think 'Kerry'? Why do you think his main theme at the convention was 'reporting for duty'? His greatest qualifier occurred for four months 33 years ago. This to a constituancy that has shown draft dodging is acceptable.
His greatest asset is he is not George Bush. That may not be enough.
I think it is the ones who have no other identifying traits. Show me where he took a stand and resolutely maintained it.
Show me his signature achievements from a long political life. Dazzle me with his personality. What am I supposed to think when I think 'Kerry'? Why do you think his main theme at the convention was 'reporting for duty'? His greatest qualifier occurred for four months 33 years ago. This to a constituancy that has shown draft dodging is acceptable.
His greatest asset is he is not George Bush. That may not be enough.
QUOTE(tyork @ Sep 5 2004, 08:28 AM)
It may be true that all politicians can be called f-f-ers, and they all are. The question is which ones do the charges stick against?
I think it is the ones who have no other identifying traits. Show me where he took a stand and resolutely maintained it.
Show me his signature achievements from a long political life. Dazzle me with his personality. What am I supposed to think when I think 'Kerry'? Why do you think his main theme at the convention was 'reporting for duty'? His greatest qualifier occurred for four months 33 years ago. This to a constituancy that has shown draft dodging is acceptable.
His greatest asset is he is not George Bush. That may not be enough.
I think it is the ones who have no other identifying traits. Show me where he took a stand and resolutely maintained it.
Show me his signature achievements from a long political life. Dazzle me with his personality. What am I supposed to think when I think 'Kerry'? Why do you think his main theme at the convention was 'reporting for duty'? His greatest qualifier occurred for four months 33 years ago. This to a constituancy that has shown draft dodging is acceptable.
His greatest asset is he is not George Bush. That may not be enough.
Actually I would flatly disagree with you tyork and actually have proof of one of his greatest accomplishments while he was a senator.
Follow the Money- How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank
QUOTE
Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.
snipet
If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry.
But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.
snipet
But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.
snipet
As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."
snipet
Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.
snipet
If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry.
But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.
snipet
But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.
snipet
As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."
snipet
Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency--even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best. "John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."
I only heard about this, this weekend and I wish Kerry would use it to show he was already fighting the money laundering with rogue states back in 1988.
Well, evidently your candidate does not agree with you as he has presented himself with his other accomplishment. This heretofore obscure achievement is not what he considers his hallmark, seemingly.
QUOTE(tyork @ Sep 5 2004, 12:30 PM)
Well, evidently your candidate does not agree with you as he has presented himself with his other accomplishment. This heretofore obscure achievement is not what he considers his hallmark, seemingly.
Hello tyrok - you're pretty new so you likely didn't realize one-liners are against the Rules as they are deemed unconstructive. Please bring some substance to the debates. 
TOPIC:
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
TOPIC:
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
A lot of politicians flip-flop--or to use another term, change their minds. During the Democratic Primaries, I remember strongly advocating for Dennis Kucinich, despite his apparent reversal of opinion on abortion rights. His voting record was consistently pro-life. But he became a staunch pro-choice politician in the last couple of years. There seems to be a vast inconsistency, and had Kucinich been nominated, I can easily envision the Bush campaign targeting him on this flip-flop.
But that would be rather ignorant. The San Francisco Chronicle published an article which explained Kucinich's gradual shift: Ohio Presidential Hopeful Pivots Over to Pro-Choice Camp.
One of my primary gripes with our current President Bush is his insistency of being right no matter what. Even if facts fly in the face of his intelligence, he maintains his stance. When it was learned that WMDs were not to be found, the war became an ideological struggle to free the Iraqi citizens from an evil dictator. Should we condemn President Bush for this flip-flop? I often do, primarily because it is a matter of pre-emptive warfare versus national defense security.
Kerry flip-flops too. Unfortunately, the right-wingers seem obsessed with this. If I hear Sean Hannity mention Kerry's $87 billion vote out of context again, I may go to New York and smack some sense into him.
But that would be rather ignorant. The San Francisco Chronicle published an article which explained Kucinich's gradual shift: Ohio Presidential Hopeful Pivots Over to Pro-Choice Camp.
One of my primary gripes with our current President Bush is his insistency of being right no matter what. Even if facts fly in the face of his intelligence, he maintains his stance. When it was learned that WMDs were not to be found, the war became an ideological struggle to free the Iraqi citizens from an evil dictator. Should we condemn President Bush for this flip-flop? I often do, primarily because it is a matter of pre-emptive warfare versus national defense security.
Kerry flip-flops too. Unfortunately, the right-wingers seem obsessed with this. If I hear Sean Hannity mention Kerry's $87 billion vote out of context again, I may go to New York and smack some sense into him.
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
Kerry told National Public Radio two months before the 1992 election:
Kerry, after the 2004 RNC:
The Bush campaign didn't bring up Kerry's Vietnam service. This is a flip-flop to me.
Kerry told National Public Radio two months before the 1992 election:
QUOTE
"I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran, that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected."
"That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice," the Massachusetts Democrat railed.
"That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice," the Massachusetts Democrat railed.
Kerry, after the 2004 RNC:
QUOTE
"The vice president even called me unfit for office last night," Kerry said. "Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."
The Bush campaign didn't bring up Kerry's Vietnam service. This is a flip-flop to me.
Doesn't really seem like a "flip-flop" here DTOM. Kerry didn't say he wouldn't use his own Vietnam service during his own politicking, but that Bush Sr. breaking his promise and using Clinton's dodging as a political battlepoint was shameful. Not sure it was shameful, but that's politics for ya.
And Cheney did indeed say that Kerry was unfit to serve as commander in chief. But if you're comfortable with someone sending people to war who wouldn't go anywhere near a war in their youth but are happy sending someone else, then great! That's definitely not my beef with BC2004, but I can see where Kerry would bring it up to ding them. He didn't make the promise Bush Sr. did.
And Cheney did indeed say that Kerry was unfit to serve as commander in chief. But if you're comfortable with someone sending people to war who wouldn't go anywhere near a war in their youth but are happy sending someone else, then great! That's definitely not my beef with BC2004, but I can see where Kerry would bring it up to ding them. He didn't make the promise Bush Sr. did.
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
Well, he certainly has been all over the map on what to do about Saddam Hussein. The GOP has a 12 minute video that they've produced detailing Kerry's various votes and positions over the years. It is almost exclusively statements Kerry has made in response to questions. I saw F911, I wonder how many on the other side will dare watch this.
Well, he certainly has been all over the map on what to do about Saddam Hussein. The GOP has a 12 minute video that they've produced detailing Kerry's various votes and positions over the years. It is almost exclusively statements Kerry has made in response to questions. I saw F911, I wonder how many on the other side will dare watch this.
QUOTE
saw F911, I wonder how many on the other side will dare watch this
Its amazing how conservative pundits are so dedicated to misusing the Hardball interview where Kerry "proclaimed" himself the anti-war candidate. They're forced to cut out the context in order to make it seem like Kerry made himself anti-war, while in reality Kerry said:
QUOTE(Kerry)
I am. Yes. In the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman)
As explain in the quote, he is the Anti-way-this-war-was-carried-out candidate. Not an anti-Iraq-war candidate. The message, in this case, is carried through the context.
I guess I couldn't be overly surprised when I saw this same, baseless attack in the Trailer to this documentary.
Now that I watched the trailer again, I couldn't help but chuckle a little bit about how obvious the words were cut from the sentence.
"I am. Ye..."
Certainly wasn't done with much Finesse, though I suspect some people will buy it.
QUOTE
Now that I watched the trailer again, I couldn't help but chuckle a little bit about how obvious the words were cut from the sentence.
"I am. Ye..."
Certainly wasn't done with much Finesse, though I suspect some people will buy it.
"I am. Ye..."
Certainly wasn't done with much Finesse, though I suspect some people will buy it.
It was a sloppy edit, I'll grant that. Frankly, I would have preferred they put the entire answer in. It demonstrates how Kerry can't even answer a straightforward question without qualifying it.
QUOTE
MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong in that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war? The way it‘s been fought? Along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean, and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?
KERRY: I am. Yes. In the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.
KERRY: I am. Yes. In the sense that I don‘t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.
So, yes he was one of the "anti-war candidates", at least at that time.....
But, why not watch the entire video instead of just the trailer? There's much, much more there, including some extensive questions and answers on other talk shows.
QUOTE
So, yes he was one of the "anti-war candidates", at least at that time.....
Well, as I said before, not really. He qualified the yes, as you said:
QUOTE
Kerry can't even answer a straightforward question without qualifying it.
In other words, Kerry is the anti-way-we-went-to-war candidate, not a strictly anti-war candidate. The trailer cut is evidence that his wishy-washy response does not really grant him a clear anti-war status. If all we look at is the Kerry quote from hardball, the juries still out on whether he would have waged war with Iraq or not.
QUOTE
But, why not watch the entire video instead of just the trailer? There's much, much more there, including some extensive questions and answers on other talk shows.
Personally, I love watching things I disagree with. Some of the things are clearly in context and devasting. Among it is the quote where he states he supports the administrations efforts in Iraq. The democratic debates also look pretty bad as well. Their effort to show his "dean" jump while playing the flipper song, however, using evidence from the hardball interview, was pretty weak. It was such a key moment that the GOP should have at least made the editing better.
They should have added in his "saying Iraq has WMD's does not make it so" at the DNC. All in all, pretty good. But for me, not thoroughly convincing.
At the very end of the movie, he's caught saying "That is not a flip flop." As he is about the explain, they stop the tap and frame in big words "Oh really."
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Sep 7 2004, 08:58 AM)
So, yes he was one of the "anti-war candidates", at least at that time.....
And he still is Aquilla. What you and several others fail to understand is that there is a big difference between being anti-war because you are a pacifist and being anti-war because you disagree with the war.
So what's changed now? Well clearly Kerry can't turn back the clock to when Hussein was in power and do things his way - so what is the point of being anti-war? Kerry has realized that we are over there and we have to finish the job (anything less would be irresponsible), he will be left with the mess the Bush administration gave him. Regardless of what his previous position was, he has to take into account the current situation. His overall message is still the same, we are focusing our effort in the wrong place. I fail to see how this is a flip-flop.
QUOTE
Well, he certainly has been all over the map on what to do about Saddam Hussein. The GOP has a 12 minute video that they've produced detailing Kerry's various votes and positions over the years.
I haven't viewed your video on Kerry's position on Hussein, but I can guess what the content is. To that I would say - so what? There have been times during the past ten years where Hussein has been perceived as a threat and times when he hasn't. I personally don't care what Kerry's position was on an issue 10 years ago, I care what his position is today and for the next four years.
If you want to go down that road, I'd be interested to see how you try and explain away the repeated assertion during the 2000 presidential debates that President Bush was not going to engage in nation building keeping in mind this was only 4 years ago and not 10 years ago:
QUOTE
From Gore-Bush debate on October 11, 2000
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.
[snip]
BUSH: But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.
[Contrast this to the 200 billion spent so far in helping to 'bring democracy' to Iraq]
[snip]
BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra [I think he meant 'exit'] strategy obvious.
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.
[snip]
BUSH: But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.
[Contrast this to the 200 billion spent so far in helping to 'bring democracy' to Iraq]
[snip]
BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra [I think he meant 'exit'] strategy obvious.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 5 2004, 05:19 PM)
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
Kerry told National Public Radio two months before the 1992 election:
Kerry, after the 2004 RNC:
The Bush campaign didn't bring up Kerry's Vietnam service. This is a flip-flop to me.
Kerry told National Public Radio two months before the 1992 election:
QUOTE
"I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran, that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected."
"That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice," the Massachusetts Democrat railed.
"That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice," the Massachusetts Democrat railed.
Kerry, after the 2004 RNC:
QUOTE
"The vice president even called me unfit for office last night," Kerry said. "Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."
The Bush campaign didn't bring up Kerry's Vietnam service. This is a flip-flop to me.
Forgive me if this response is too late to be effective. But I couldn't help noticing that Kerry's first statement was in 1992 when Clinton was running against Dubya's daddy. That was a pretty long time ago.
Now, enter 2004, twelve years later. After several weeks of being targeted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Spite and getting remarks from Cheney and others about his "fitness" to lead the country, and also after the Democrats had stopped harping on George W. Bush's incomplete service record in the Air National Guard, Kerry came out swinging, figuratively speaking, against these personal attacks.
Twelve years--that's got to be the s-l-o-w-e-s-t "flip-flop" in recent memory. To me, it doesn't constitute a flip flop, which would be to turn around and change one's mind that fast. And at that, Kerry reversed his position after the right-wing attack dogs had been nipping at his heels and drawing blood.
The man has the right to defend himself. And all I can say is, these GOP "elephants" have a darned longer memory regarding their opponents than regarding their own candidates.
amf Posted: Sep 6 2004, 07:06 AM
I would dearly love for you to point out where in his speech he said those words, or words to that effect. Cheney uttered nothing of the sort, and what he did say was totally in character with what Kerry says about Bush. With one exception: The president's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.
Nothing close from the Kerry camp in that vein.
In the Bush Sr. speeches of time, I found one comment that he made about biting the bullet, when Clinton did not. Maybe there's more, I haven't found them yet.
Yes PE, 12 years is quite awhile. Do you honestly think anything said by Bush at anytime in his past has not been examined, or would not be, simply because of the passage of time?
Again, I'm interested in where the word fitness or unfit were mentioned anywhere in Cheney's speech. Is everybody simply pulling headlines from the 'conservative' media, or is anyone really reading and watching these remarks?
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how," Kerry said in 1992. "I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Why then is he now saying: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served."
So, Mr. Kerry....we can't criticize anyone who served? Or can't criticize your Vietnam record...which hasn't been done by Bush or Cheney?
"During the Vietnam War, many young men including the current president, the vice president and me could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too.
"Instead he said, send me," Bill Clinton said recently.
Actually, Mr. Kerry said 'Please give me a deferment.....oh, denied? OK now you can send me.
Funny how the media doesn't want to mention that. Or Edwards deferment.
I see a profound difference in Kerry's sentiments about the pre-requisite of a president having a military background when it concerned a democrat, as opposed to now. You'd think by listening to Kerry you'd have to have been skipper of a swift boat to run for office.
I still say...flip-flop.
QUOTE
And Cheney did indeed say that Kerry was unfit to serve as commander in chief.
I would dearly love for you to point out where in his speech he said those words, or words to that effect. Cheney uttered nothing of the sort, and what he did say was totally in character with what Kerry says about Bush. With one exception: The president's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.
Nothing close from the Kerry camp in that vein.
In the Bush Sr. speeches of time, I found one comment that he made about biting the bullet, when Clinton did not. Maybe there's more, I haven't found them yet.
Yes PE, 12 years is quite awhile. Do you honestly think anything said by Bush at anytime in his past has not been examined, or would not be, simply because of the passage of time?
Again, I'm interested in where the word fitness or unfit were mentioned anywhere in Cheney's speech. Is everybody simply pulling headlines from the 'conservative' media, or is anyone really reading and watching these remarks?
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how," Kerry said in 1992. "I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Why then is he now saying: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served."
So, Mr. Kerry....we can't criticize anyone who served? Or can't criticize your Vietnam record...which hasn't been done by Bush or Cheney?
"During the Vietnam War, many young men including the current president, the vice president and me could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too.
"Instead he said, send me," Bill Clinton said recently.
Actually, Mr. Kerry said 'Please give me a deferment.....oh, denied? OK now you can send me.
Funny how the media doesn't want to mention that. Or Edwards deferment.
I see a profound difference in Kerry's sentiments about the pre-requisite of a president having a military background when it concerned a democrat, as opposed to now. You'd think by listening to Kerry you'd have to have been skipper of a swift boat to run for office.
I still say...flip-flop.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 7 2004, 09:12 AM)
I see a profound difference in Kerry's sentiments about the pre-requisite of a president having a military background when it concerned a democrat, as opposed to now. You'd think by listening to Kerry you'd have to have been skipper of a swift boat to run for office.
Dontreadonme, I don't really agree, but then again, I'm voting for John Kerry. I don't know that John Kerry has ever said you must have served to be President. I simply think that a President who has served in the military will think longer before sending the troops off for battle. It seems so easy to condemn John Kerry for his past votes since they are available to anybody. It seems even easier when his challenger, President Bush, has no record of voting. Nobody can point to Bush's record and say, "See? Flip-flop." I mean, the only record I can find on Bush prior to his Texas governor position is a DUI.
I think Kerry's criticism of President Bush's military record only stems from Bush attacking Kerry. Okay, okay, Bush hasn't said anything negative himself, but Republican groups have attacked him. I can't pin this on Bush since it is doubtful he has anything to do with them. But Kerry was lashing out at the ads, not necessarily Bush. It's comparable to saying, "Don't attack my miltary record when your own candidate has little military experience." Furthermore, Kerry asking for a deferment was simply because he wanted to finish his college education. He finished after the Vietnam war, but there is no harm in asking for a deferment. It would be much more damaging had he been awarded the deferment or five.
My biggest problem with John Kerry is his inability to speak. He's intelligent, but he often resorts to low-brow and cheap shots. He doesn't explain himself very well. I have to go look elsewhere to understand his positions. This will be his downfall, since most voters will probably not invest as much time as I have researching candidates.
Frankly, I'm rather sick of the "flip-flop" term because it has a negative connotation. President Bush supporters seem to prefer things in black and white, which results in the perception of flip-flops. The world is not black and white, however, and anyone who must delve into the details will be viewed as limp and wavering. We call the terrorists "evil" and yet "evil" is subjective. It depends on your politics--to them, they are doing God's work. To us, it is deplorable. This inability by the Bush administration to recognize this is a huge problem I have with him. It is not blaming America, as they say, but looking at it from their perspective. To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy. But apparently, if you know the enemy, you are anti-American.
*note: this is all purely my speculative opinion and does not necessarily reflect fact
QUOTE(dtom)
QUOTE(amf)
And Cheney did indeed say that Kerry was unfit to serve as commander in chief.
I would dearly love for you to point out where in his speech he said those words, or words to that effect. Cheney uttered nothing of the sort, and what he did say was totally in character with what Kerry says about Bush.
Well, the speech, as it was written (he may have improvised; I didn’t watch, so I would not have first hand knowledge) said:
QUOTE
Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief and that is to support American troops in combat. Boston Herald
Thus, reporters interpreted it as:
QUOTE
Vice President Cheney reached back decades into John F. Kerry's life Wednesday night, arguing in taunting language that the Democratic presidential nominee has demonstrated through his public statements and votes that he is unfit to be commander in chief in an age of terrorism. WA Post story
The Washington Post’s ombudsman debunks it later:
QUOTE
The problem is that Cheney never used the word "unfit." Yet the headline can be seen as reinforcing the Swift boat challengers' attack. The headline writer no doubt drew inspiration from the first paragraph of the story by reporter John F. Harris, who wrote that Cheney "reached back decades" into Kerry's life, "arguing in taunting language that the Democratic presidential nominee has demonstrated through his public statements and votes that he is unfit to be commander in chief in an age of terrorism." WA Post Ombudsman
The implication is there – the word “unfit” isn’t…except on the cover of a book. Just dirty politics as usual on both sides…
What issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
Um...gun control. Kerry cosponsored a bill that would have banned the gun he is holding here, which was given to him as a gift during a stop on Labor Day in Racine, West Virginia.
Instead of saying "no I could not allow this gun to be in my position." Kerry 'flip-flops' his position saying "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me." Does this mean he wants to kill Bush? Or just threat him with a gun? A gun in his eyes should be outlawed.
Um...gun control. Kerry cosponsored a bill that would have banned the gun he is holding here, which was given to him as a gift during a stop on Labor Day in Racine, West Virginia.
Instead of saying "no I could not allow this gun to be in my position." Kerry 'flip-flops' his position saying "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me." Does this mean he wants to kill Bush? Or just threat him with a gun? A gun in his eyes should be outlawed.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 7 2004, 05:09 PM)
Um...gun control. Kerry cosponsored a bill that would have banned the gun he is holding here, which was given to him as a gift during a stop on Labor Day in Racine, West Virginia.
Not, of course, to question that paragon of "truth" named Drudge, but why does the rifle Kerry is holding not look exactly like the one in the picture to the right of the text? I see at least 4 points of difference, so I gotta wonder... who's zoomin' who here?
And that's what happens when you read "Highlights" as a kid.
QUOTE
Um...gun control. Kerry cosponsored a bill that would have banned the gun he is holding here, which was given to him as a gift during a stop on Labor Day in Racine, West Virginia.
Instead of saying "no I could not allow this gun to be in my position." Kerry 'flip-flops' his position saying "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me."
Instead of saying "no I could not allow this gun to be in my position." Kerry 'flip-flops' his position saying "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me."
He held up a gun a supporter gave him during a rally. Big deal. He's a gun owner who hunts, but he voted against semi-automatic weapons - doesn't seem too flip-floppy unless you're taking all your info from the tornado of spin that is the Drudge Report Trailer Park.
QUOTE
Does this mean he wants to kill Bush? Or just threat him with a gun? A gun in his eyes should be outlawed.
I believe it was what's commonly known as a "joke." I don't think he was trying to be threatening. And once again, Kerry's a gun owner.
...but why does the rifle Kerry is holding not look exactly like the one in the picture to the right of the text? I see at least 4 points of difference, so I gotta wonder... who's zoomin' who here? And that's what happens when you read "Highlights" as a kid.
Good EYE. The picture on the Drudge site is a BERETTA Model A300 while the Senator stands posed holding a REMINGTON Model 11-87
He held up a gun a supporter gave him during a rally. Big deal. He's a gun owner who hunts, but he voted against semi-automatic weapons - doesn't seem too flip-floppy...
See this is the flip-flop Both the Beretta and the Remington are semi-automatic shotguns used for hunting that would have been band by his BILL. And just to be off the drudge report, here is another article that tells the same story as Drudge: Story.
So why hold up a gun that he will use to hunt with, when he wants to outlaw the same type of gun? FLIP-FLOP.
I believe it was what's commonly known as a "joke." I don't think he was trying to be threatening.
I don't know, the man was holding a gun when he said it and has recently been feuding with the man he threaten. If this was the show cops, Kerry would have to spend a night in jail for domestic violence.
...unless you're taking all your info from the tornado of spin that is the Drudge Report Trailer Park.
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
Good EYE. The picture on the Drudge site is a BERETTA Model A300 while the Senator stands posed holding a REMINGTON Model 11-87
He held up a gun a supporter gave him during a rally. Big deal. He's a gun owner who hunts, but he voted against semi-automatic weapons - doesn't seem too flip-floppy...
See this is the flip-flop Both the Beretta and the Remington are semi-automatic shotguns used for hunting that would have been band by his BILL. And just to be off the drudge report, here is another article that tells the same story as Drudge: Story.
So why hold up a gun that he will use to hunt with, when he wants to outlaw the same type of gun? FLIP-FLOP.
I believe it was what's commonly known as a "joke." I don't think he was trying to be threatening.
I don't know, the man was holding a gun when he said it and has recently been feuding with the man he threaten. If this was the show cops, Kerry would have to spend a night in jail for domestic violence.
...unless you're taking all your info from the tornado of spin that is the Drudge Report Trailer Park.
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
QUOTE
See this is the flip-flop Both the Beretta and the Remington are semi-automatic shotguns used for hunting that would have been band by his BILL. And just to be off the drudge report, here is another article that tells the same story as Drudge: Story.
So why hold up a gun that he will use to hunt with, when he wants to outlaw the same type of gun? FLIP-FLOP.
So why hold up a gun that he will use to hunt with, when he wants to outlaw the same type of gun? FLIP-FLOP.
I dunno. Because someone at a campaign rally handed it to him as a gift? Because it was a photo op and not a carefully thought through piece of legislature? What a total non-issue.
QUOTE
I don't know, the man was holding a gun when he said it and has recently been feuding with the man he threaten. If this was the show cops, Kerry would have to spend a night in jail for domestic violence.
Actually, Kerry has been Campaigning against Bush. A subtle difference, yes, but we're not talking the Hatfields and Mccoys here. And this isn't the show COPS - although, out of curiosity, in your hypothetical scenario, would Bush be Kerry's battered wife? Gross.
QUOTE
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
You mean, besides all the ignorant rednecks, meth labs, and tornadoes? No, I guess not.
QUOTE(countrockula @ Sep 7 2004, 06:02 PM)
QUOTE
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
You mean, besides all the ignorant rednecks, meth labs, and tornadoes? No, I guess not.
Let's keep the comments constructive and on-topic.
Individuals who resort to blanket statements and name-calling lose credibility. Most people here are sharp enough to recognize this tactic.
Blanket statements often take threads off the topic because members feel a need to defend their affiliations and not the specific subject at hand. This is not constructive.
Individuals who resort to blanket statements and name-calling lose credibility. Most people here are sharp enough to recognize this tactic.
Blanket statements often take threads off the topic because members feel a need to defend their affiliations and not the specific subject at hand. This is not constructive.
I dunno. Because someone at a campaign rally handed it to him as a gift? Because it was a photo op and not a carefully thought through piece of legislature? What a total non-issue.
But that is the issue, he holds the gun that he wants to ban, saying I like guns, but if given the chance I would ban this one because "you shouldn't hunt with an AK-47." It is a FILP-FLOP as clear as day.
Actually, Kerry has been Campaigning against Bush. A subtle difference, yes, but we're not talking the Hatfields and Mccoys here. And this isn't the show COPS - although, out of curiosity, in your hypothetical scenario, would Bush be Kerry's battered wife? Gross.
I think people shouldn't run around threating others with a gun in their hand.
You mean, besides all the ignorant rednecks, meth labs, and tornadoes? No, I guess not.
WOW, that is really prejudice comment. You assume that every person who owns a trailer is:
a. ignorant
b. redneck
c. drug addict
d. tornado? (i don't get how a person or a trailer can be a tornado, but okay)
I think that people who own trailers are hard working, descent American. Sure there will be a few bad apples, but they are everywhere, in every part of society. People who live in trailers are no different than anybody else.
JUST POSTED ON THE DRUDGE REPORT:
Communications Director for Kerry, Amy Goodwin, had the following to say about Kerry's FLIP-FLOP. "The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will."
But Mrs. Goodwin the bill clearly states that it would have "banned a semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip," and the Remington Model 11-87 is a semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip, what do you say to that?
"The Republican Party and George Bush's campaign will stop at nothing to mislead voters about John Kerry's record. We challenge Bush to engage in honest debates--West Virginians deserve to hear the truth."
Oh I get it, Bush is a liar and some how changed the bill, the gun, and Kerry's record to make him look like he FLIP-FLOPPED.
But that is the issue, he holds the gun that he wants to ban, saying I like guns, but if given the chance I would ban this one because "you shouldn't hunt with an AK-47." It is a FILP-FLOP as clear as day.
Actually, Kerry has been Campaigning against Bush. A subtle difference, yes, but we're not talking the Hatfields and Mccoys here. And this isn't the show COPS - although, out of curiosity, in your hypothetical scenario, would Bush be Kerry's battered wife? Gross.
I think people shouldn't run around threating others with a gun in their hand.
You mean, besides all the ignorant rednecks, meth labs, and tornadoes? No, I guess not.
WOW, that is really prejudice comment. You assume that every person who owns a trailer is:
a. ignorant
b. redneck
c. drug addict
d. tornado? (i don't get how a person or a trailer can be a tornado, but okay)
I think that people who own trailers are hard working, descent American. Sure there will be a few bad apples, but they are everywhere, in every part of society. People who live in trailers are no different than anybody else.
JUST POSTED ON THE DRUDGE REPORT:
Communications Director for Kerry, Amy Goodwin, had the following to say about Kerry's FLIP-FLOP. "The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will."
But Mrs. Goodwin the bill clearly states that it would have "banned a semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip," and the Remington Model 11-87 is a semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip, what do you say to that?
"The Republican Party and George Bush's campaign will stop at nothing to mislead voters about John Kerry's record. We challenge Bush to engage in honest debates--West Virginians deserve to hear the truth."
Oh I get it, Bush is a liar and some how changed the bill, the gun, and Kerry's record to make him look like he FLIP-FLOPPED.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 7 2004, 04:47 PM)
...unless you're taking all your info from the tornado of spin that is the Drudge Report Trailer Park.
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
Is there something wrong with trailer parks?
Actually, I believe it was James Carville who brought 'trailer parks' into our political lexicon... Apparently if alleged rape victims live in one, it makes them less credible, at least for a certain former governor of Arkansas.
The point on the gun photo is that the bill Kerry supported was written so badly, it could have potentially banned many many guns not comtemplated by the bill. The 'pistol-type' grip is so vague as to be subjective. Kinda like 'assault' weapons. Way too vague, which is why the slippery slope argument keeps working as pertains to the 2nd amendment.
Drifting back on topic ... which is why this is a bit of a flip flop. The Dems have dropped the anti-gun stance of a few years back for the most part. Kerry loves to photo-op with a rifle in his hand and mention hunting. On the other hand, when you look at his actual Senate record (not questioning his patriotism, mind you) he received a zero rating or "F" from the NRA, but 100% from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. That's pretty solidly anti-gun.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Sep 7 2004, 05:47 PM)
...but why does the rifle Kerry is holding not look exactly like the one in the picture to the right of the text? I see at least 4 points of difference, so I gotta wonder... who's zoomin' who here? And that's what happens when you read "Highlights" as a kid.
Good EYE. The picture on the Drudge site is a BERETTA Model A300 while the Senator stands posed holding a REMINGTON Model 11-87
Good EYE. The picture on the Drudge site is a BERETTA Model A300 while the Senator stands posed holding a REMINGTON Model 11-87
So where does the "detachable magazine" go on the Remington?
See, that's what happens when you read Highlights AND are sick of self-serving talking points.
The bill's text dealing with semi-automatic rifles:
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)
QUOTE
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
It's not a pistol grip, although I'm sure someone could modify it, but Kerry hasn't done that or accepted a modified one. It doesn't fold or telescope. It can't handle detachable magazine and it shoots 4 rounds.
Where's the problem? As I asked before: Who's zoomin' who here?
The press release you mentioned was from an NRA group... too much self-serving nonsense about how the average person needs an automatic weapon and legislators who want to ban those killing toys are "anti-gun". What nonsense!
QUOTE
But that is the issue, he holds the gun that he wants to ban, saying I like guns, but if given the chance I would ban this one because "you shouldn't hunt with an AK-47." It is a FILP-FLOP as clear as day.
It's a non-issue clear as day, and it's typical of Republicans to try to spin something like this into yet another obfuscating character attack, since their candidate has no achievements to run on.
QUOTE
I think people shouldn't run around threating others with a gun in their hand.
He wasn't threatENing Bush. It's pretty offensive you would even suggest that.
QUOTE
WOW, that is really prejudice comment. You assume that every person who owns a trailer is:
a. ignorant
b. redneck
c. drug addict
d. tornado? (i don't get how a person or a trailer can be a tornado, but okay)
a. ignorant
b. redneck
c. drug addict
d. tornado? (i don't get how a person or a trailer can be a tornado, but okay)
First of all, I didn't suggest a person could be a tornado - you're mistaking your own logical errors for mine. Secondly, it was a joke. PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED
Let's drop the trailer park references and stop getting personal. The topic for debate is:
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
what issues are there that Kerry can justifiably be called a flip flopper on in the sense that he has changed his position on an issue to argue both sides of a point when convenient or that he has made sharp changes for no good reason?
Still don't think Kerry flip flopped on his decsion with Iraq, watch this Documentary on Kerry's views on Iraq.
It may open your eyes to the dangers of Kerry's flip flop.
Kerry Iraq Documentary
It may open your eyes to the dangers of Kerry's flip flop.
Kerry Iraq Documentary
Watched the video and didn't see anything new. Kerry is not so obviously guilty of flip-flopping on this issue. I would expect any intelligent figure to take in new information and make some shifts on an issue.
Kerry agreed that Hussein was dangerous.
He believed in the foreign policy of regime change.
He agreed to Congressional authorization to allow the executive to form policy on Iraq.
He then disagreed with the way the executive branch applied that power to Iraq.
These are not flip-flops and I think it is downright un-presidential to have a campaign web site with attack videos. I think using the flipper theme song is childish and again, un-presidential.
Just because you repeat something with resolve and determination does not make it true.
Kerry agreed that Hussein was dangerous.
He believed in the foreign policy of regime change.
He agreed to Congressional authorization to allow the executive to form policy on Iraq.
He then disagreed with the way the executive branch applied that power to Iraq.
These are not flip-flops and I think it is downright un-presidential to have a campaign web site with attack videos. I think using the flipper theme song is childish and again, un-presidential.
Just because you repeat something with resolve and determination does not make it true.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.