Talk About Flip Flopping...

[Mickey Carson]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

Don't mess with Texas.

[EatSleepJeep]

Politicians.

[jrock5730]

they all do it, its sad this is what politics is all about....just another reason I hate government. Fuck George W. Bush and all his lies.

[DMBSignGuy]

Bush has always been a flip-flopper. This election is Bush's attempt to label Kerry as a flip-flopper similar to how they portrayed Gore as a liar in 2000. Its dirty politics.

[cyberhound]

Bush has always been a flip-flopper. This election is Bush's attempt to label Kerry as a flip-flopper similar to how they portrayed Gore as a liar in 2000. Its dirty politics.
Are you saying that Gore wasn't a liar? Or that Kerry isn't a fiip-flopper? Is it really dirty politics, or is it just politics?

[Carbon Copy]

either way kerry and bush are both flip floppers so i think everyone needs to get off of kerrys ass for it

[Eric(h)]

Are you saying that Gore wasn't a liar? Or that Kerry isn't a fiip-flopper? Is it really dirty politics, or is it just politics?

it would be 'just politics' if both kerry and bush were labled flip floppers, or neither for that matter. Its dirty politics if one party is hypocritical.

[Gregb486]

its upsetting that kerry has been trying to run a somewhat positive campaign while bush wants absolutley none of it. i want to see a bush ad with a plan, not just ragging on kerry.

[nubby]

Are you saying that Gore wasn't a liar? Or that Kerry isn't a fiip-flopper? Is it really dirty politics, or is it just politics?
It's all relational. What you consider flip-flopping I might consider an adjustment to judgement. What you might consider a liar I might consider a fibber. Symantics...

BTW I do believe Gore lied but I don't consider him a lying liar. I don't consider Kerry a flip flopper either.

[cyberhound]

It's all relational. What you consider flip-flopping I might consider an adjustment to judgement. What you might consider a liar I might consider a fibber. Symantics...

BTW I do believe Gore lied but I don't consider him a lying liar. I don't consider Kerry a flip flopper either.
See, the thing about Kerry is that he doesn't merely adjust his judgement. He says what is politically convenient for the day. Hell, his staff can't even keep up with his stories. And, yes, all politicians do this to some extent but Kerry tops them all. And on the single most major issue in this campaign. Iraq. It's not as if Kerry moves from one idea onto a better idea on Iraq either. That's not flip-flopping. He goes from agreeing with the president on strategy, and the decision making that led to the war to opposing it to agreeing with it and then opposing it once again. That's flip-flopping. From one side to the other and back again.

[nubby]

I dunno I think it's only fair to take into consideration a few things: First, Kerry is not the only one to have flip-flopped on the Iraq situation, and the reason for that is fairly clear; being that Bush had a main reason for invasion I. WMD and II. Because Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda. Second, Kerry like most other senators only have information that is provided to them. Over the past 2 years the information and intelligence regarding Iraq has changed and so has the situation. It's not just unfair to hold this against Kerry, it's bad politics to do such a thing. Additionally, couln't we say that Americans in general have flip-flopped over the war?

[cyberhound]

I dunno I think it's only fair to take into consideration a few things: First, Kerry is not the only one to have flip-flopped on the Iraq situation, and the reason for that is fairly clear; being that Bush had a main reason for invasion I. WMD and II. Because Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda. Second, Kerry like most other senators only have information that is provided to them. Over the past 2 years the information and intelligence regarding Iraq has changed and so has the situation. It's not just unfair to hold this against Kerry, it's bad politics to do such a thing. Additionally, couln't we say that Americans in general have flip-flopped over the war?
I might agree with you on this save for a couple of things. Kerry's position on the war seems to be tied less to the information changing that it does to such factors as whom he is running against and whom asks the questions on what day. And I quote...


Howard Dean: December 15th, 2003- Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles "The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer."

"The difficulties and tragedies we faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost so far of $166 billion."

John Kerry: December 16th, 2003 Drake University in Iowa "Those who doubted whether the Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

John Kerry: September 6th, 2004- called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

"I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war," Kerry told supporters.

"I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace."

[Eric(h)]

Additionally, couln't we say that Americans in general have flip-flopped over the war?

I want to believe that, but I think its untrue. public patriotism may not be rampant anymore, but the people that blindly followed the president then are still blindly following him now.

[Eric(h)]

John Kerry: December 16th, 2003 Drake University in Iowa "Those who doubted whether the Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

John Kerry: September 6th, 2004- called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

"I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war," Kerry told supporters.

"I said, Mr. President don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace."

I dont see this as a flip flop though. Im anti-bush and anti-war, but the world did take a step forward in the big picture by removing Saddam. It did not, however, make Iraq a safer place. Its just a step in the right direction, but for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

Isnt that what kerry said?

[Mickey Carson]

Although Kerry has obviously flip-flopped a lot, his stance on Iraq has been "fairly consistent" as David Sanger has stated. He voted to give Bush the authority to go to war because it would have placed inspectors back into Iraq and his position has consistently been that Bush went to war too quickly and without support from our allies. He has always said that the President should have had the authority but believes that the President used that authority incorrectly and prematurely.

And one of the most frustrating things about Kerry's stance on the war is the notion that he voted against funding troops and the 87 billion dollars while the Republicans attempt to show that Bush is always for supporting troops. How quickly they forget! The reason that Kerry and other Senators voted against the 87 billion dollars for troops wasn't because they were against the troops or against the troops receiving 87 billion dollars. Kerry's vote against that bill (along with other Senators) was due to the 20 billion dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction. The Senate wanted half of the reconstruction money to be grants and half of it to be loans. That was the whole reason the bill took some time to make it through Congress and the reason why there were multiple versions and proposals of the bill. After Kerry voted against the bill Bush was threatening to veto it! Bush wanted all of the 20 billion dollars to be grants which many members of the Congress disagreed with. Yes, Kerry voted against the bill based on the way reconstruction money was to be allocated so did this mean that he didn't support the troops when Bush was threatening to veto the same bill if the 20 billion wasn't entirely composed of grants? This doesn't mean that Bush was wrong or being unfair to troops when he was contemplating vetoing the bill if it wasn't structured the way he wanted, but it is wrong when he boils the entire debate and controversy over the bill down to "There's nothing complicated about supporting our groops" and rails on Kerry for not supporting it when he knows that Kerry's vote of "no" had nothing to do with supporting the troops. In a final ironic twist it seems that Kerry and other Senators were probably right in wanting a detailed plan of how the $20 billion was to be used...the argument used by the President in favor of the 20 billion being all grants was so that Iraq could be up and running as quick as possible once a new government was in place. But now a year has passed and virtually none of that money has been spent.

[nubby]

Although Kerry has obviously flip-flopped a lot, his stance on Iraq has been "fairly consistent" as David Sanger has stated. He voted to give Bush the authority to go to war because it would have placed inspectors back into Iraq and his position has consistently been that Bush went to war too quickly and without support from our allies. He has always said that the President should have had the authority but believes that the President used that authority incorrectly and prematurely.

And one of the most frustrating things about Kerry's stance on the war is the notion that he voted against funding troops and the 87 billion dollars while the Republicans attempt to show that Bush is always for supporting troops. How quickly they forget! The reason that Kerry and other Senators voted against the 87 billion dollars for troops wasn't because they were against the troops or against the troops receiving 87 billion dollars. Kerry's vote against that bill (along with other Senators) was due to the 20 billion dollars allocated for Iraq's reconstruction. The Senate wanted half of the reconstruction money to be grants and half of it to be loans. That was the whole reason the bill took some time to make it through Congress and the reason why there were multiple versions and proposals of the bill. After Kerry voted against the bill Bush was threatening to veto it! Bush wanted all of the 20 billion dollars to be grants which many members of the Congress disagreed with. Yes, Kerry voted against the bill based on the way reconstruction money was to be allocated so did this mean that he didn't support the troops when Bush was threatening to veto the same bill if the 20 billion wasn't entirely composed of grants? This doesn't mean that Bush was wrong or being unfair to troops when he was contemplating vetoing the bill if it wasn't structured the way he wanted, but it is wrong when he boils the entire debate and controversy over the bill down to "There's nothing complicated about supporting our groops" and rails on Kerry for not supporting it when he knows that Kerry's vote of "no" had nothing to do with supporting the troops. In a final ironic twist it seems that Kerry and other Senators were probably right in wanting a detailed plan of how the $20 billion was to be used...the argument used by the President in favor of the 20 billion being all grants was so that Iraq could be up and running as quick as possible once a new government was in place. But now a year has passed and virtually none of that money has been spent.

Ok, so concervatives have been using the Kerry no-vote on body armor for the troops but they don't go into depth about what happened. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155 this article explains that in fact Kerry did vote for a version of the bill but the concervatives shot it down because it would repeal part of the Bush Tax breaks.

[DMBSignGuy]

Are you saying that Gore wasn't a liar? Or that Kerry isn't a fiip-flopper? Is it really dirty politics, or is it just politics?

in the context of how the republicans are portraying both no. That doesnt mean gore hasnt lied or kerry hasnt flip-flopped. It means that there has been a genuine effort from conservative think tanks to attack candidates and label them. I'll use Al Gore as an example. Before the 2000 election republican think tanks began an 18 month campaign to label gore as a liar and untrustworthy. example of such, Al Gore lying about inventing the internet. He never said he invented it, he said he helped created it....and he did. He, among a few others, championed and funded a program called Arpanet, an emergency military computer network, which would eventually become what is now the Internet. Gore championed and funded Arpanet and took credit for it....but he was called a liar for it. i was commenting on how its been done before and is being done now. i would consider it dirty politics similar to the way McCain was smeared in the 2000 primary.

[cyberhound]

I dont see this as a flip flop though. Im anti-bush and anti-war, but the world did take a step forward in the big picture by removing Saddam. It did not, however, make Iraq a safer place. Its just a step in the right direction, but for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

Isnt that what kerry said?That was a good point Erich. I must admit to having to think about what you said. I even considered conceding that point to you. But...something kept bothering me about this subject. So I went back and read the first speech, and then I went back and read my post you responded to. You see, Kerry hasn't until recently called this war wrong. Wrong timing, wrong way, yes, Kerry has said that in the past. But he has stated repeatedly that he would have done things differently to wage this war and win the peace. Why do things differently in waging the if the war is wrong? Why now is the war wrong? That smacks of monday morning quarterbacking. It's also quite disengenuious and disconcerting, because he gave the authority to the president to wage this war. He shirked his own constitutional duty to declare war and handed it over to the president. What did he think Bush was going to do with that authority? Bush made it clear he was going to go to war if Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. He also made it clear that if the UN didn't enforce those resolutions that he (we) would go it alone if need be. Yet Kerry still ceded authority to him, and now stands back and says I told the president to do it differently, or I would have done it better. No, I don't buy that. If the war was truly wrong to Kerry, as I said last year (http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/showthread.php?t=50668), then Sen. Kerry wouldn't be claiming he would have done the wrong thing the right way, or ceded authority over to do the wrong thing. And with the resources and past experiences available to him as a former member of the Senate intelligence committee only a couple of years removed, saying he was misled is the lamest of excuses. So, I still say he flip-flopped on Iraq.

[nubby]

In the eyes of defeat you refuse concession. Cyber you will never cease to amaze me. All in the prospect of labeling Kerry a flip-flopper definitively. If Kerry is a flip flopper than Bush is a flip flopper as well and the arguement is lost because they both have that attribute going against them. If he is not a flip flopper than neither is Bush and I can still maintain that Kerry is my favorite candidate due to convictions and beliefs rather than a befuddling argument.

[cyberhound]

In the eyes of defeat you refuse concession. Cyber you will never cease to amaze me. All in the prospect of labeling Kerry a flip-flopper definitively. If Kerry is a flip flopper than Bush is a flip flopper as well and the arguement is lost because they both have that attribute going against them. If he is not a flip flopper than neither is Bush and I can still maintain that Kerry is my favorite candidate due to convictions and beliefs rather than a befuddling argument.
Whatever makes you feel good. Defeat.:lol

Tell me something. Do you think this war is wrong?

[DMBSignGuy]

Whatever makes you feel good. Defeat.:lol

Tell me something. Do you think this war is wrong?

wait wait....i know this one....its yes...........or maybe no....possibly...sorta... :freak

[nubby]

Whatever makes you feel good. Defeat.:lol

Tell me something. Do you think this war is wrong?

Yes. But hind sight is 20/20 and I realize that.

[cyberhound]

Yes. But hind sight is 20/20 and I realize that.
So does your candidate. Somedays. Keep that in mind in November.

[nubby]

My mind is already made up because no one can provide me a reason to vote for Bush. He doesn't represent me and he doesn't represent most of america.

[barefoot]

I would say 99% of the people on these boards already have their minds made up. Debating the issues is good but will not change the views of the people involved.

[Eric(h)]

I would say 99% of the people on these boards already have their minds made up. Debating the issues is good but will not change the views of the people involved.

healthy, open minded debate may not change a persons presidential candidate come novermber, but it may very well help shape a persons views for later discussion and later voting. I know that when I talk to kris about politics, shes allowed me to rethink my stance on many issues, and it seems ive more in common with the libertarian party than the liberals at times.

anyway, point being, Im still not voting for bush. But understanding the other options (read: not bush or kerry) is integral. And knowing that the lesser of two evils approach also underminds the political system and dooms us to a dual party system (read: one party).

[nubby]

I think what dooms us to a two party system is the way in which we vote. I forget where I read it but there is a voting system that would allow people to vote for multiple candidates based on rank. So you vote for one person and then your next choice all the way up to 5 candidates. If your main choice has the least amount of votes than you vote goes to the next person on the list. The person with the least amount of votes gets removed after each round until one person has a majority of the votes.

[cyberhound]

healthy, open minded debate may not change a persons presidential candidate come novermber, but it may very well help shape a persons views for later discussion and later voting. I know that when I talk to kris about politics, shes allowed me to rethink my stance on many issues, and it seems ive more in common with the libertarian party than the liberals at times.

anyway, point being, Im still not voting for bush. But understanding the other options (read: not bush or kerry) is integral. And knowing that the lesser of two evils approach also underminds the political system and dooms us to a dual party system (read: one party).
This, we can agree on.

[cyberhound]

I think what dooms us to a two party system is the way in which we vote. I forget where I read it but there is a voting system that would allow people to vote for multiple candidates based on rank. So you vote for one person and then your next choice all the way up to 5 candidates. If your main choice has the least amount of votes than you vote goes to the next person on the list. The person with the least amount of votes gets removed after each round until one person has a majority of the votes.
That's not a bad idea, assuming the two parties don't load the ticket with their candidates.

[nubby]

That's not a bad idea, assuming the two parties don't load the ticket with their candidates.
I think it would open the doors to more parties. With this kind of system I would vote for ralph nader followed by kerry and if there was another candidate I liked I would put them before kerry. This just seems to give people more options.

[SMN43]

its upsetting that kerry has been trying to run a somewhat positive campaign while bush wants absolutley none of it. i want to see a bush ad with a plan, not just ragging on kerry.
and i think we would all love a set position on an issue from kerry, instead of bragging about a war record. it's give and take. i would gladly listen to what kerry has to say to see if he has the right idea, but so far he is just being vague on the issues. for example, what is kerry's firm stance on iraq? i don't think he even knows.

[Julia21]

Help me pleaseee. I know you guys don't have cash but sign up to volunteer for me please.. its a good cause... and even if you dont belive in it you wann help a friend right??
http://acthere.com/seeUser.php?memberID=3199

[nubby]

and i think we would all love a set position on an issue from kerry, instead of bragging about a war record. it's give and take. i would gladly listen to what kerry has to say to see if he has the right idea, but so far he is just being vague on the issues. for example, what is kerry's firm stance on iraq? i don't think he even knows.

Well from what he's said he's going to finish the job and start lobbying for other countries to get more involved in the nation building process. He might have a better chance because to be quite frank Bush isn't a popular person right now and most countries want nothing to do with him. I think kerry could start the healing process between the US and her allies. His stance is that we went to war in the wrong way but that the world is a better place with out Saddam. He also stated that he wants to deflect some of the costs America is incurring by using oil from Iraq to pay for it's own repair and infrastructure costs. Obviously, Bush is probably going to do the same thing but we shall see.

[Route_2]

It's kind of hard when the pipelines get blown up on a regular basis.

[nubby]

Good point, but that leads back to some other issues like winning the hearts and the minds of the people.

[bohazo]

But understanding the other options (read: not bush or kerry) is integral. And knowing that the lesser of two evils approach also underminds the political system and dooms us to a dual party system (read: one party).

I haven't read all of this thread but you are right on. Not voting (or voter apathy) is as big a statement as who wins. Do a majority of Americans even vote anymore? If not, how can that person be the legitimate leader of our nation.

Two parties doesn't work. Our nations founders never intended for there to be a two party system.

[Route_2]

Good point, but that leads back to some other issues like winning the hearts and the minds of the people.Since it's most likely insurgents doing it anyway, I don't see their hearts and minds won over anytime soon. This engagement is going to continue for a long time, in my opinion.

[barefoot]

healthy, open minded debate may not change a persons presidential candidate come novermber, but it may very well help shape a persons views for later discussion and later voting. I know that when I talk to kris about politics, shes allowed me to rethink my stance on many issues, and it seems ive more in common with the libertarian party than the liberals at times.

anyway, point being, Im still not voting for bush. But understanding the other options (read: not bush or kerry) is integral. And knowing that the lesser of two evils approach also underminds the political system and dooms us to a dual party system (read: one party).
I think you have to be the type of person who is open to accepting what someone with a different view has to say. I know I have learned alot during this election from what people have to say and the links that have been posted. " the lesser of two evils" phrase is one that I have heard more this election than any other I can remember. I hope people also keep in mind this isnt a contest like in sports, casting a vote is showing what you believe in, not just trying to be on the " winning " side.

[randallpink14]

if you lived where i do about 30 min. away from ny. you wouldn't be voting for kerry, let that sink in

[randallpink14]

come on, no answers for that reply??????????

[Mickey Carson]

come on, no answers for that reply??????????
I don't see your point...based on your logic, explain to me then why it is that Kerry will easily win New York.

[nonewdirections]

if you lived where i do about 30 min. away from ny. you wouldn't be voting for kerry, let that sink in
not clear what you're implying. i grew up in NYC and i don't support bush in the least. most new yorkers don't. on the other hand, where i live now, virginia, has a lot of bush support.

[Julia21]

I'm in NY too about 20 minutes outside of the city and I don't know what your implying either. NY is pretty much a democratic state, always has been So the though is that Kerry will win NY. But that shouldn't stop anyone from voting. I think it's even more important to vote durring local elections what do you guys think?