We have been debating on other threads whether Kerry has demonstrably flip-flopped on issues. Some convincing episodes of changing poisitons have been argued.

President Bush is campagining on the fact that he is a steadfast leader.

Use this thread to introduce alleged flip-flops and then debate whether it is evidence of flip-flopping or not.

The question for debate is:

Has President Bush flip-flopped on his policies as a president. How so?

The follow up debating should focus on whether evidence of Bush flip-flops is convincing or if it fails to meet a standarad for indecisiveness.

Yes.

In the 2000 campaign, he claimed to support mandatory caps on carbon monoxide. As president, he opposed them.

In the 2000 campaign, he said that same-sex marriage is an issue for the states to decide. Then in 2004, he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw it.

In the 2000 campaign, he was opposed to McCain-Feingold. In 2002, he signed it into law.

In the 2000 campaign, he opposed nation building. Now he supports it, in Iraq.

He was against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Then he supported it.

He claimed to be a free-trade supporter, yet as president he imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel.

He opposed the creation on an independent 9/11 commission. Then he supported it.

He opposed an outside investigation on the WMD intelligence failire. Then he supported it.

I think that's pretty convincing Stephen. Well, it show's he's human. Or a liar, whichever your prefer.

I have to speak for my distaste at the use of the FOX "News" soundbyte "Flip-Flopping." I know that it is off topic, but I would much rather elect a politician who was realistically willing to re-assess their decisions and maybe find a better choice. I think the opposite of "flip-flopping" is far more important. Isn't it far worse to be arrogant about your actions, unwilling to concede when you are wrongm, unwilling to reconsider a better path (or less destructive one). Bush "The Leader" is campaigning on the fact that he isn't willing to change his mind on ANYTHING because that is strong leadership. Hore-Poo. Representing the will of the people, and catering to the needs of the people is strong leadership. Bush has not done any such thing.

Is Bush a "Flip-Flopper"? Lord I hope so... maybe he'll change something in hes economic policy... or his foreign policy... Preferably he'll reconsider his bid for president.

Let's start with the "defining event" of his Presidency, the attack of 9/11/2001.

Two days later, he said:



A mere six months later, he is quoted as saying:



Osama Bin Laden is considered to be the mastermind behind several attacks on the United States, and "It's not our priority."??? This is the steady, resolute leadership he brags about?

I am looking forward to the Presidential Debates. I wonder if in the debates, he will tell America as a whole what he has learned as President, some of those lines that always bring him cheers of "Four more years..."

He is running for "re-election" to the most important office in the land, and according to the President, the NUMBER ONE reason that we should vote for him is so that his wife will remain as First Lady. He should at least back that up by speaking about her accomplishments as first lady, instead of referring to her as his "lump in the bed."


How many two income households will be impressed by that statement? Most of us know that a minimum wage job won't support a family, and the unemployment benefits when a job is shipped overseas are even less helpful. Yet, I am certain that he has described himself as a "Compassionate Conservative." Oh that's right; helping the homeless, the underemployed, the unemployed, the single mother on welfare, etc., to pull themselves up by their bootstraps has been consigned to "faith based initiatives." The general welfare of the people is no longer the concern of government. These people should have done a better job of investing their tax refunds.

He has defined himself as a "War President." Somehow, he claims that by taking the nation to war, he has made all Americans safer.

His Vice President has tried to warn us that unless we cast our votes for the right team, America could face devastating attacks on our home soil. Apparently, this administration has forgotten the devastating attacks on our home soil that happened while George W. Bush was trying to read a children's book, and Dick Cheney was occupying the oval office...

Has President Bush flip-flopped on his policies as a president. How so?
I hate to say this, but I think everyones a waffler. I'm sure if you browsed through my posts, you could find conflicting statements that I've made. And I'm an introvert whos only spent a year on this website! Imagine a twenty year senate record!

Thusly, I think Bush has "waffled" as well. He said he wouldn't get into any of that nation building mess, and we've basically built a nation from the ground up. Theres a fairly good list of them right here:
Bush waffles

Of course, Bush is able to get away with anything because of 9/11. Its the excuse we've heard ad nauseum for the last three years. The economies doing bad only because of "9/11;" it has nothing to do with the poorly aimed tax cuts (this was the slowest economic recovery since WW2).

In this way, Bush can cover for a lot of his flops by taking a new world stance. "9/11" is why the Bush administration had to change its mind about the deficit, nation building, the environment, etc. Thats an excuse Kerry doesn't really have.

That doesn't mean that Bush can be faulted for some of his waffles. His change to fiscal liberalism (borrowing money to expand the federal government) is arguably justified under the circumstances. I wish Bush would change his mind as he gets more facts and better ideas. Sadly, they've maintained a policy of steadfast consistency in darkness of what many would consider the facts in order to keep their single edged sword. Even as republican senators talk about the tragdies of Iraq, which would seem to indicate a need for a change of strategy, the Bush administration holds tight to their arguably failing plan.

This steadfastness resulted in a type of hubris at the RNC. When Bush talk about the economy, his message was essentially that the economy was doing great. I'm thinking their strategy is just to say everythings doing fine, to say jobs are here, to say that Iraq is doing great, to say that global warming doesn't exist.

I really wish he could waffle on some of those.

Has President Bush flip-flopped on his policies as a president. How so?

From the 2000 presidential debates:


Hmmm, well I think Bush has definitely flip-flopped on the highlighted portions in the quote above. The mission in Iraq is not and never has been clear, we are not prepared to win (not enough troops), we under-estimated the enemy and we have no exit strategy. Sounds like Bush forgot to let his speech writers make command decisions for him.

There is also the matter of "nation building" which Bush was so fervently against in the 2000 debates, citing it as a key difference between him and Gore. If what we are doing in Iraq isn't nation building, then what is?

I think that the comments I have posted above and the comments that Curmudgeon posted are by far the most significant. There are many others though. An interesting example representative of the differences between candidate Bush and president Bush.


Furthermore, here is another list of broken campaign promises. The most notable items here are:
-Deficit
-Social Security
-National Debt

Just as others have done for Kerry, I could defend Bush's positions on both "nation-building" and gay marriage.

Iraq is not an exercise in nation building. We are re-building Iraq after the destruction we caused. There is a real difference in the reason we went into Iraq and the reason (for example) we went into Haiti.

Iraq, in the President's eyes, was a security threat to the US. We didn't go in there to improve the quality of the water. Rebuilding a country after a war has been US policy for quite some time and is different from "nation-building".

As far as gay marriage goes, I think most Conservatives (including myself) were in the "states issue" camp before certain court decisions made it clear that gay marriages in Massachusetts (for example) equated to a de facto gay marriage in every other state. The states rights argument apparently took a back seat to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. Something fundamental to the argument changed, meaning that the positions associated with that issue needed to be re-examined.

Just some quickies on the other issues mentioned by StephenBostonMA:

One blanket argument is that Bush has not vetoed any piece of legislation to hit his desk. Perhaps he feels that the will of the Congress should not be overturned by the Chief Executive. I don't really know.

Specifically:

-McCain-Feingold: Most Conservatives felt that the Supreme Court would overturn this as un-Constitutional. It did not, however. This may have been a political mistake by the President, since it directly led to the emphasis on "527s" who have attacked him personally for the last year. Instead of taking money out of politics, it took it out of accountable politics and back into the back alleys of these 527s.

-9/11 Commission: Considering that this was a Congressional appointment, I don't see how Bush could have flip-flopped on this one. Although there was some resistance (with the assumption that such a commission would turn into a political circus), I don't recall the President specifically being against creation of the commission.

-Free trade: Another sticking point for Conservatives. This was a linguini spined cave to the Democrats in Congress. A dumb move. A mistake. A blunder.

Other issues:

Social Security: I want to know where this magical "lock box" is... The thing simply does not exist. It's pretty hard to waffle over an imaginary issue.

Deficit/National Debt: Being wrong (or unlucky) is not a waffle. Inheriting a recession is not a waffle.

It simply amazes me how half the issues listed here are that Bush spends too much money and the other half is that he doesn't spend enough... Please keep in mind that Bush does NOT make laws, he simply signs what comes onto his desk. If a Congressman does not propose an increase in Pell grants limits (for example) then Bush cannot increase them. If they propose a lesser level of funding (in order to get the needed votes, for example), then Bush did not flip flop by taking what he was given.

"Re-building"?

There wasn't a republic to be rebuilt in Iraq. We built that. We chose what form of government they were to follow. If we were merely rebuilding Iraq, we would have restored their former system of government.

As I said, we didn't rebuild their system of government.

So, having a recession automatically creates a deficit? Was Bush "unlucky" that he spent so much government money. The tax cuts, by the way, which have constituted the slowest recovery since WW2, were half of the deficit.

And he could always cut spending. He went further into deficit to fund a trip to mars. He went further into deficit to provide council for married couples. Was he simply unlucky in doing those things? Were those the result of a recession?

Bonafide waffles, if you ask me.

From Bush’s press conference prior to the invasion:


Don’t know your definition of Nation Building, but if we’re there to just re-build the infrastructure and provide security for the clerics as they form their new government, than I might agree with you. But we both know we are the ones dictating their political direction. If that’s not nation building that please explain.


Selective naiveté? As politically astute as you are Amlord, you really believe that the President can’t work with congress to push initiatives/bills that he wants? So according to your logic a President shouldn’t make any campaign promises since they don’t write the laws. How convenient.

I am not being naive.

The President pushes an agenda, but the specifics of the agenda are largely out of his control.

How can you blame the President for the specifics of a bill which he does not author? If he has pushed it through to the voting stage, we are being a bit harsh if he cannot get everything he asked for.

Those sources posted earlier criticize Bush for not funding education sufficiently. Give me a break. Of all issues, education should be one (at least on the funding side) that Bush is beyond reproach. Education spending has grown under Bush like no other President.

Bottom line: the President does push an agenda through Congress. But at some point, compromise is necessary. This is not waffling, it is politics.

Juxtapose this with Kerry, who has no one to compromise with, per se. He simply changes his position to suit the current need (in some cases).

Allow me to clarify about nation building:

Nation building is where we go into a situation as a peace keeper and stay to "fix" the country. It was tried in Somalia, in Haiti, and in other places. The original reason for going there was not US national security.

In Iraq, the primary reason to go was the security issue. After we are in there, it is in our best interest to get things back up and running. I don't think anyone would advocate bombing Iraq, invading to insure that Saddam and the Baathists are out of power and then simply turning on our heels and leaving. THAT would be completely irresponsible.

At the time the security issue became pressing and we invaded Iraq, all talk about nation building is out the window. There is nothing else to do but "rebuild" the country in some fashion. I think this is completely different from what happened in our other "nation building" efforts.



That is pretty much correct. A recession means negative economic growth. Negative growth means negative revenue from taxes. Most governments do not raise taxes during a recession, since it harms the recovery. Tax cuts plus recession equal deficit, but also a quicker recovery.

I guess you make these terms, right? Sounds like Alan Keyes explaining why his moving to a different state to run for senator was different than Hilary Clintons. The bottom line is, we went into a nation, and built a system of government for it. Sounds like nation building to me.

As I said, you can always cut back on spending. Arguably, funding the war in Iraq was worth going into deficit, but was marriage council worth going into deficit? In no ways does a recession automatically mean a deficit, there are other ways around that. It could have ranged from cutting back on the tax cuts, or, the more conservative thing to do, cutting unneccesary programs.

Tax cuts plus recession could also equal cut in government spending. Maybe we should have waited to fund a trip to mars. He's a fiscal liberal now (borrowing money to expand the federal government), plain and simple.

I posted many quotes from the 2000 debates to show just how much Bush has failed as president ( http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=7767&hl= ), many of which can be used to make a case for his "flip-flop"ing just as much as any other politician - however the post was edited and the vast majority of them were deleted. The links to the 2000 debate transcripts remain of you want to go back and search them out yourself.

Here is a PDF document that summarizes many of them.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/...1B63%7D/gwb.pdf

I don't think it is particularly fair to criticize someone for not upholding campaign promises. As said as that may be as it reflects the state of American politics I think that if anyones campaign promises are compared with their performance once taking office there will always be discrepancies.

Having said that, I think that there is a case to be made that Bush has "flip-flopped" or whatever you want to call it, on some crucial issues. Perhaps the most egregious case I can think of is his new found insistence that the Democrats description of "two Americas" is somehow delusional at best and deceitful at worst.

The problem is that in his Inaugural Address, the speech intended to lay the foundation for his presidency Bush himself acknowledged the existence of the same "two Americas" he is now turning a blind eye to.

"While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country."

"share a continent but not a country" sounds pretty much like "two americas" to me.

Flip flopping is not always bad. . . as mentioned above there are times when what may be perceived as "flip flopping" is in fact a measured reconsideration of a position, which, when done intelligently and with good intentions is laudable. The problem occurs when the flip-flop happens for political reasons and is not caused by any change in the underlying rationale. Bush's "two americas" flip flop falls squarely in the category of a political flip-flop. And it is a political flip-flop of the worst kind. . . unless Bush honestly believes that he has made managed to bridge the divide between the "two americas" despite the fact that most every indication is that the gap is widening, he has engaged in a flip flop simply because he wanted to take a position which would not draw attention to his failings while at the same time not demand an explanation for his failings at remedying the very problem he had called attention to in his inaugural. In one fell swoop Bush flip-flopped and the social issues which really do plague our country disappeared into the folds of "One America"

To quote Amlord:



I would agree with this statement, if it weren't for the fact that both houses of Congress are controlled by Bush's Republican cohorts. Bill Clinton could have claimed such difficulties, working as he was for most of his two terms with a Congress dominated by his opponents. But even then, Clinton had occasion to veto legislation with which he disagreed and on which he could not reach an acceptable compromise. President Bush has yet to use a veto against this Congress.

The President's refusal to use his veto in certain instances necessarily brands him a flip-flopper. Bush explicitly promised to rein in spending while in office, and ridicules John Kerry as a 'tax and spend' liberal. But whenever it has come time to tackle the budget, he has allowed his own party, a group of people whom we can assume share his goals and are receptive to his input, to serve him up a pork-barrel cornucopia, and has signed off on it without objection.

But I wonder if this action (or lack thereof) constitutes a 'flip-flop.' In reality, Bush's baseless lip service to fiscal responsibility has continued throughout his term, even as he has watched the deficit soar. He has actually been quite consistent in this regard. Sadly, consistent empty pandering is just as bad a habit in my view as inconsistent flip-flopping.

I think Amlord raises fair points in his defense of Bush. I think we can see that either side can rationalize their candidate's changing positions. I do think that Amlord is wrong in trying to still paint Kerry as a 'flip-flopper,' going so far as to say that Senator's don't have to compromise. That's simply untrue. Senators and Congresspeople compromise all the time. This is one of the worst, and greatest, things about our system of government. Politicians want to accomplish something. Often, in order to do it, they will compromise on some other issue, and in return, get someone else to compromise on the first issue.

I think that, if we are to give credence to Amlord's defense of Bush's many 'flip-flops,' we must conclude that the very issue of 'flip-flopping' is made moot. Of course, the low road, and the more predictable course, is that we continue to grasp at explanations for our candidate's waffling, while still accusing the other guy of waffling.

This article is really just too good to pass up. It does an excellent job of describing Bush's biggest flip-flop of all - Iraq.
On the purpose of the Iraq war:


And also here on the mission - I guess the mission really will change.


On the vote in the senate:


There is more, the whole thing is worth a read.

Here is a nicely compiled list of the ever changing stances of president.
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/

There is more than enough to make a case that Bush does the exact same thing. I just find it amazing that he has the audacity to make that claim against Kerry, I guess he needs a very simple blend of mud to sling to keep his "base" focused.