Scrat wrote:Windtamer wrote:Yes, I've seen this site.
Really? Then what was this crap?:
Windtamer wrote:The Bush administration has leveled some serious accusations against Kerry by calling him a "flip flopper". Have you seen proof of his alleged flip flops from the Bush administration?
Now you're telling me you KNEW that the news media had reported on Kerry's flip-flops and were just pretending not to know and pretending (your inference) that the Bush administration was just making this stuff up? Well, I hope you understand if I don't find you terribly credible after this.
As to the time frame involved in Kerry's waffling, some people happen to believe that there are such things as core principles. Kerry's only core principle seems to be that he wants to get and keep power. Take a look at Kerry's now infamous "I voted for the $87B before I voted against it." For me the issue there isn't even his decision one way or the other, but his willingness to espouse both sides of the issue to try to suck up to everyone. Add to that his loud complaints that "Bush" hasn't outfitted the troops with what they need when Kerry voted to deny the funding needed for the equipment they lack; it isn't just a matter of being on the wrong side of the issues or trying to lie about which side he is on to pander to this or that group, it's a fundamental willingness to use any issue to his advantage, regardless of facts and without any semblance of integrity.
Kerry is starting to make Bill Clinton look good to me.
Gee, I'm crying a river at losing credibility with you. My reasons for asking those set of questions was to bring out specific accusations from someone so that I could respond to each one in turn. NOT because I was unaware of actual flip flopping claims. You gave me a bunch of accusations to respond to and I did so in kind.
You seem to really like this flip flopping issue. Lets elaborate on this some more by talking about Bush's flip flops. The link to the site can be found
here.
Here's an easy one: Said gay marriage was an issue for the states during the campaign. Once the states started doing something, it's a federal issue.
Posted by: J.B. Howard at March 5, 2004 11:36 AM
Just thought of another one: Opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department. Then favored creation of a Homeland Security Department.
Posted by: J.B. Howard at March 5, 2004 11:41 AM
Was definitely going to call for a second U.N. vote and let the chips fall where they may.
Didn't call for a second U.N. vote.
Posted by: Brendan Lynch at March 5, 2004 11:45 AM
If you want to point out any flip-clops in foreign policy, you're going to have to expect the counter-argument "9/11 changed everything". Until a persuasive counter-counter-argument is found ot that, Bush will be able to get away with those flip-flops.
Posted by: Albert Law at March 5, 2004 11:46 AM
Negotiating with North Korea was a failed Clinton tactic.
Negotiated with North Korea.
Posted by: Brendan Lynch at March 5, 2004 11:46 AM
Opposed increasing SEC scrutiny. Then flopped.
Preached keeping his hands off the Social Security lockbox. Then decided it would be too profitable to do so.
Opposed creation of independent 9/11 commission. Then flopped.
Posted by: emptywheel at March 5, 2004 11:48 AM
Will intervene militarily to "end" states that knowingly harbor terrorists and allow the spread of WMDs.
Let Musharraf off with a pat on the back.
Posted by: Brendan Lynch at March 5, 2004 11:48 AM
How does that square with William Saletan's thesis that Bush's weakness is his un-flippability?
By showing that he flip-flops on the issue of flip-flopping, I guess.
Posted by: Grumpy at March 5, 2004 11:49 AM
A very recent flipper:
Economic Report of the President for 2004--the economy will add 2.6 million jobs this year
Um, never mind.
Posted by: J.B. Howard at March 5, 2004 11:49 AM
Said he was a Uniter, not a Divider.
Then divided the country by saying the constituion was the proper place to exlude rights from American citizens.
Posted by: paradox at March 5, 2004 11:56 AM
"If you want to point out any flip-clops in foreign policy, you're going to have to expect the counter-argument '9/11 changed everything'."
Well, bloody hell, 9/11 changed NOTHING. The terrorist threat on 9/10/01 was every bit as great as on 9/12/01. Policies which were bad on 9/10 didn't suddenly become good on 9/12.
The only difference after 9/11 is that some of our past mistakes became a lot more obvious, even to nonexperts. But that's not much of an excuse for the people we elect to deal with these things.
Posted by: rea at March 5, 2004 12:13 PM
"Opposed creation of independent 9/11 commission. Then flopped."
Then flipped back and refused to cooperate with the commission he appointed. That one counts double!
Posted by: rea at March 5, 2004 12:16 PM
Bush's flipflops can be accounted for in his campaign slogan, with a minor tweak: "Shifty leadership in changing times." I also emailed Matthew with the suggestion "Shady leadership in changing times." Yes, it is a bit juvenile of me, but Bush has little of substance to campaign on--as long as he wants to offer the most vacuous of reasons to keep him around, it's only fair to summarize his failures in kind.
Posted by: Dana at March 5, 2004 12:19 PM
My hometown paper, the Star Tribune, offers a few constructive lines toward this thread:
"In his State of the Union speech this year, Bush proclaimed: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America."
"What? He said what?" came the world's reaction. But the president was simply following the Bush formula for dealing with a credibility problem: State the opposite and pretend it's true.
That's how it came to be that America deployed just the right number of troops to keep order in postwar Iraq. That's how tax cuts produced millions of new jobs, how most tax cuts benefit people at the bottom, how lax regulation brings a cleaner environment, how the budget needs to exclude Iraq and Afghanistan until after the election, how No Child Left Behind became fully funded, how the president's honorable discharge proves he really did attend those National Guard meetings, how the Medicare bill will cost only $400 billion (not the current $534 billion estimate), and how Iraq was really in cahoots with Al-Qaida."
Posted by: Dana at March 5, 2004 12:23 PM
How about a list of priorities
12 million putting Tommy Chong in jail.
operation pipe dream
going after prostitutes in New Orleans
focusing in on California medical marijuana state rights.
going after the right to die states rights issue.
A two fer, already mentioned, gay marriage.
Posted by: at March 5, 2004 01:08 PM
by the way shouln't all marriages be gay
Posted by: at March 5, 2004 01:28 PM
Well, bloody hell, 9/11 changed NOTHING.
Hmmmm....that's twice I've seen that here in two days.
If you don't think 9/11 changed anything........well, you might want to resign yourselves to the concept of the Democratic party being in the minority for many years to come.
Posted by: Ricky at March 5, 2004 01:38 PM
Bush reversed his campaign pleddge on carbon dioxide emissions within months of taking office. This is not subject to a 911 analsysis. Pure bait and switch.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/news/airquality-2001-03-13.shtml
Posted by: Boomtown at March 5, 2004 01:46 PM
I assume that during the campaign he mumbled the appropriate words about balanced budgets and fiscal restraint and probity, then tossed that to the winds.
Posted by: Bob H at March 5, 2004 01:50 PM
Then flipped back and refused to cooperate with the commission he appointed. That one counts double!
Then said he supported giving the commission a 60 day extension while getting Hastert to oppose the extension! Triple!
Posted by: Royko at March 5, 2004 02:22 PM
Albert, 9/11 may have changed everything, but it didn't change the Administration's Iraq policy. Common knowledge.
Posted by: neil at March 5, 2004 02:27 PM
These are some of the most pitiful examples in the history of your pathetic anachronistic Leftism. When did Bush EVER SAY THAT DEFICITS DIDN'T MATTER in '03? Your only evidence is what Ron Suskind claimed that former Treasury Secretary O'Neal heard Cheney say in a private meeting. Is this sufficient evidence of a "flip flop"?
Regarding your "nation building" point, were you aware that a pretty big event commonly called 9/11 may have changed some people's viewpoints? Do you truly think that no government policy should have changed after this historic attack? Is any change in government policy an unconsciencable "flip flop"? Do you understand how this sort of "flip flop" might differ from Senator Kerry completely changing his views on free trade 3 weeks prior to Iowa?
With respect to your McCain/Feingold point, do you contend that a president must veto every bill he disagrees with? When he signed the bill, he still stated that he disagreed with it.
Regarding free trade, the president has comprehensively supported free trade at numerous Doha round meetings, and has signed many multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements, including ones with Jordan, the Caribbean, Chile, and Australia. You take one small example of steel that has since been rescinded and blow it out of proportion, letting the exception define the rule.
The only thing worse than your terrible examples is your hidious haircut. Either take down that picture or get a new barber!!!!!
Posted by: dellis at March 5, 2004 03:03 PM
I want to reiterate what Matt said about this all coming in the last five years for Bush. Kerry has a much longer record that makes it easier to distort things by picking on a vote from, say, 1985. Or his silly interview with the Harvard Crimson in 1970. If 9/11 changed everything, how about the end of the freaking Cold War? Or the Vietnam War? Times do change, sure--the "times of change" slogan seems like it could describe any time period, really--but I think the point is that Bush has done just as much flip-flopping around in the past few years as Kerry has.
Posted by: Dimmy Karras at March 5, 2004 03:11 PM
9/11 did change many things, but they are mostly unrelated to Bush's policies. 9-11 created a political climate where it was possible to do things that were previously politically unsupportable. Invading Afghanistan, for example. Invading Iraq. Passing the Patriot Act. Having much more diplomatic sway with foreign countires (of course, this has since been frittered away and then some).
Most of the examples Matt gives then do not apply with regard to the line that 9/11 changed everything.
The only one that could apply is the line about Nation building, but not to Bush's credit.
Perhaps Bush's largest failing is that he improperly took advantage of the changed political landscape after 9/11.
Posted by: theCoach at March 5, 2004 03:14 PM
That only-in-'03 qualifier about the budget in the above post is pathetic.
In addition to the 15 or 20 flip-flops we've catalogued that haven't been refuted ... Bush sneered at Gore's small-scale solar-power incentives during the 2000 campaign, then the administration's energy task force dropped the idea into its May 2001 report. Flip-flop!
Posted by: Pericles at March 5, 2004 03:19 PM
How about nation building, states rights, etc.? I could go on ad nauseam with his flip-flops.
Posted by: JaneBoatler at March 5, 2004 04:38 PM
2000 Bush: Let states make their own decisions on gay marriage.
2004 Bush: Let's write out gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partner benefits by ammending the U.S. Constition.
Jan 2002 Bush: I will not exploit Sept. 11 for political gains.
March 2004 Bush: Ads with WTC 4/5 burned out and firefighters carrying out body parts covered by a flag.
2000 Bush: I'm a uniter not a divider
2004 Bush: I'm a divider not a uniter
Posted by: Doc at March 5, 2004 04:51 PM
Dellis,
Holy s*** - that's the best Bush defense I've ever heard! "Bush isn't a flip-flopper because he doesn't agree with the things he himself does!"
That's fantastic - straight out of Get Your War On or This Modern World.
Of COURSE I expect him to veto things he disagrees with, you nitwit - what the hell is do we have a separate executive with veto power for if the executive doesn't veto things he disagrees with?
N.B. If what he really said was "it's a good start but needs to be fixed," i.e. "mend it don't end it", that's fine, but that's NOT the same as opposing it. That's supporting it - which would be a flip-flop, you see.
Posted by: Brendan at March 5, 2004 05:32 PM
I really think it's time for a replay of the Daily Show's Governor Bush vs President Bush debate.
Posted by: Royko at March 5, 2004 09:24 PM
It seems to me Kerry could very successfully use Bush's own rhetorical construction against him:
"Republicans support free trade but implement protectionist tariffs;
They support balanced budgets but generate deficits
They support homeland security but oppose funding a Dept of Homeland Security
They support our military but cut combat pay.......
And that's just one President from Texas."
Posted by: Flory at March 5, 2004 09:29 PM
Bush was against Nation Building during the 2000 campaign. Now he's for Nation Building. Actually, considering the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe he still is against Nation Building.
Posted by: sixdegree at March 6, 2004 01:11 AM
Albert & Dellis, you should listen to neil and sixdegree. Bush's flip on Iraq didn't come on 9/11. It came between the campaign and inauguration. (Planning for the Iraq invasion began upon inauguration.) Of course, you could argue that he didn't flip by arguing that he was simply lying during the 2000 campaign.
Posted by: exgop at March 6, 2004 09:34 AM
These comments are ridiculous. If Bush cured cancer, he would be accused of helping making the drug companies richer. I'll just say these 2 things: 9/11 changed a lot of things, and Bush adjusted accrodingly, as he should have. Secondly, the gay marriage thing was protecting states from imperial judges, no flip flop there.
I feel sorry for liberals/democrats: They have to lie, distort, exaggerate and ignore to make their points, and to protect Kerry. All we have to do is point to the records of Kerry's own words and votes. They speak for themselves.
Posted by: Brian at March 6, 2004 06:17 PM
Brian,
Which of the flip-flops identified in this post+thread are lies, distortions, or exaggerations?
Since you say we have to lie, distort, and exaggerate in order to make our points, I presume that you'll be able to show that ALL of the allegations of flip-flopping herein fall into one of those categories.
And really, since we're just trying to show how Bush's flip-flops have been at least equal to, if not greater than, Kerry's, it's not much of a defense to say we're 'exaggerating,' since partisans will inevitably differ over the magnitude of a flip-flop. So, really, the pertinent accusation is that the accusations are lies or distortions.
That might take a while, though, so I tell you what, why you don't just show that a majority of the accusations here are lies or distortions. That would be pretty good evidence that liberals "have to" lie/distort/etc. all of the time.
Posted by: Brendan at March 8, 2004 12:03 AM
Lord knows I'm not a fan of Kerry, but for one to say he 'flip-flops' and that Bush doesn't, well, they're blind.
Things change, opinions change, facts change. Politicians are allowed to change their minds.
But hopefully Kerry can at least justify his changing stances, whereas Bush, in his once-a-year interview, was not able to coherently resolve his 2000 anti-"nation-building" stance and his 2001-2004 nation building.
Posted by: the good reverend at March 8, 2004 02:34 PM
In 2002 Bush moved quickly to embrace a tough corporate reform bill after having warned Congress that he felt such legislation was too tough on Wall Street, of course after a nation supported such a bill.
Posted by: Mike at March 9, 2004 07:29 AM
June 27, 2000: Bush Said He Would Work With "Friends In OPEC" To Help With Gas Prices, Use "Capital," To "Open The Spigot." When asked for a concrete example of a solution to high gas prices, Bush said, "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot." [Bush press conference, 6/27/00]
So what happens now? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will not change its plan of cutting crude oil output on April 1, despite the rising price of oil, the OPEC president has said.
Posted by: Mike at March 9, 2004 07:37 AM
After calling in his State of the Union address for a $500 personal-exemption increase for families, the president has sent Congress a second proposal dropping that increase.
Posted by: Mike at March 9, 2004 07:39 AM
At the White House, Bush said, "In Africa, the disease clouds the future of entire nations... In the hardest hit countries of sub-Saharan Africa, as much as one-third of the adult population is infected with HIV, and 10 percent or more of the schoolteachers will die of AIDS within five years." He proposed "to make $500 million available" to prevent transmission of HIV from mother to children.
The President expects his project to prevent nearly 150,000 infant infections over the next five years. The problem is, there are about 800,000 children born with AIDS each year, according to the United Nations. That means the Bush initiative is aiming at helping less than 4 percent of this population. Moreover, $200 million of this supposedly "new" initiative was approved for use this year by Congress days before Bush's announcement. What he added was $300 million for this type of AIDS prevention in the following two years. Which averages out to $150 million a year - a cut from the current level.
It gets worse. At the start of June, several Republicans - notably, Sens. Bill Frist and Jesse Helms - were trying to raise overseas AIDS funding this year by $500 million. But the White House leaned on Frist and Helms and got the pair to slice that to $200 million.
Hours after making his disingenuous AIDS announcement, Bush attended a black-tie Republican fundraising extravaganza that collected $30 million or so, with a major portion coming from pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by: at March 9, 2004 07:55 AM
Text of the Daily Show's "Governor Bush vs. President Bush" interview can be found at
http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2003-April/020521.html
Posted by: Patti at March 9, 2004 09:23 AM
Bush has claimed many times that he supports DEMOCRACY, but filed to support DEMOCRACY in Venezula and Haiti. In fact failing to support DEMOCRACY is the best that can be said of Bush. There are ample reasons to believe that Bush's administraton actually acted to undermine the DEMOCRATICLY elected leaders of Haiti and Venezuela. This from a President that was selected by the Supreme Court, instead of letting the peoples vote count.
Posted by: Sam at March 9, 2004 10:12 AM
Bush calimed to be a UNITER not a divider, yet today we have one of the most polarized electorate in the history of the country.
"George W. Bush has proven to be one of the most divisive presidents in history."
Quote taken from:
Published on Thursday, January 1, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune
The American Political Landscape in 2004
by James Goldsborough
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/goldsborough/20040101-9999_mz1e1golds.html
Posted by: Sam at March 9, 2004 10:34 AM
Molly Ivins:
Remember when? Bush record replete with rewritten histories and chucked promises
Posted by: Patti at March 9, 2004 01:21 PM
Molly Ivins
03.09.04
Remember when? Bush record replete with rewritten histories and chucked promises
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16563
Posted by: Patti at March 9, 2004 01:22 PM
George Bush "reverses policy" on arsenic levels in drinking water. (Why is it, when he "fib"-flops, always stated as a "policy reversal"? Remember when he dropped the ball on poor Christie Whitman with this one? (Or, did he leave her looking like a fool about carbon dioxide emissions?) My personal favorite, is when he sneered about 'na-tion building' during the 2000 debates.
Posted by: carolscorner at March 10, 2004 10:51 PM
This may not actually be a flip-flop, but i thought that it was so egregious that i felt i should include it. Bush was refusing to turn over any memoes and Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) to the 9/11 commission for 'reasons of national security" etc. Then I read in the New York Times, that these very same sancrosanct documents had previously been turned over to a journalist writing a book about Bush!!!!!
Posted by: carolscorner at March 10, 2004 11:15 PM
don't forget him flip flopping on finding out who leaked the CIA agent info. wasn't even going to happen at first.
Posted by: casper at March 11, 2004 12:57 PM
Lets state facts, Bush has polarized US only because the democrates won't let go of FL. 2000. Because of the way Clinton was treated they thought that it was owed to Gore to win. All the news makers, media, papers, and TV news sent people down to recount and all found that Bush won. The 3 places that couldn't count votes were all democrate and run by democrates. The arsenic in the water is exactly where it was during Clinton, Bush wouldn't lower it. If Judges would interpert the law not make it, this thing with Gay marriage would have never come up. He wasn't against Homeland Security Dept. Certain laws needed to be passed and before you make a brand new Department you don't want to jump before recieving advise from the different departments that this would change. Democrates are all over Bush for the deficit, yet complain because he will only give a 4% increase in the programs we already have. The reason Bush will only testify with the leaders of 9-11 Commision is he knows that it would be drawn out over days with repeated questions, this way the questions will be answered, so he can get back to work, he learned this from the Clinton days. Clinton put Aristed back in Haiti, Collin Powell was their to help and he stated that because we did not stay involved after, we allowed Aristed to change, he cheated his country and needed to leave (he left a poor country a rich man). In order to fight this war on terror their are Countries that we need to work with now, their are some that we hope will change if not we will go back to them when know longer needed. Bush said not all being done will be seen by us and not all will need force. It does make a difference if what President Bush says is believed, if you don't believe that, look at the bombings during Clinton, no one was afraid that we would come after them so they keep coming after us. We will get them because not going after them will change nothing. Kerry on Viet Nam, when he came home to protest in front of Congress, the things he accused our guys of doing (raping, cutting off ears, heads ect.) without any proof only what he had heard, hurt our people still at war, if this is true why didn't he report this while he was still their. Ask Senator McCain what he thought about it. It hurts their moral when still involved in war, sort of like not voting to support our troops while still their. This all happened while my brother was having his face blown off. We have the right to protest, but you need to be careful about the way you go about it, so as not to hurt the very people you are trying to help. So whether you are for or against this war we all still have to support them.
Posted by: lou at March 17, 2004 04:33 PM
