1
   

Kerry vs. Bush - Flip Flops Galore....

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 02:21 pm
First I would like to say that I personally would prefer a leader that has a record of changing their mind based on new information to a more practical view over a leader that stubbornly and childishly clings to one view regardless of what new information emerges.

Nineteen years worth of legislation taken out of context is myraid with changes in opinion.

But bush brags that he "never revisits a decision. (only)intellectuals change their mind." (Time, April 12, 2004)

But that's another debate.

The issue here is, who is a bigger waffler Bush or Kerry.

"It helps Bush that when he backslides, he is typically shifting to a popular position from an unpopular one. Kerry reverses himself more subtly, over time and often with an intricate explanation, none of which can fit in a 30-sec ad.... circumstances have changed between any given flip and flop." (Time, April 12, 2004)

You heard about Kerry's waffles...

Supporting a gas tax when gas prices were at record lows and now opposing them since they are already high

Giving the president the authroization to go to war with Iraq after having exhausted every other option and then changing his mind and rebuking his support for the war and the finanaces when it became clear that Bush has no intention of exhausting every other option

Supporting a few cuts on national defence (by eliminating some of the more wasteful programs) when our defence needs were low only to advocate high defense spending when we exhausted most of our funds on two wars and created additional organizations that needed funded.


But one could argue that Bush's list of waffles easily match or exceed Kerry's record

1. Resisting democrat's calls to reorganize the govt. to better coordinate domestic security efforts and then changing his mind when FBI agent Coleen Rowley went public with the 9/11 clues that slipped through the cracks and then taking credit for the Homeland Security department that he initially stringently opposed.

2. Bush attacked Kerry for proposing intelligence cuts in 1995 while ignoring the fact that the republicans in congress proposed and eventually approved an even greater reduction in intelligence funding the same year. Kerry was merely proposing an alternate bill that wouldn't cut intelligence as heavily

3. Rice's decision to testify.

4. Steel tariffs

5. Not funding his own no child left behind policy

6. Abandoning any notion of fiscal responsibility by spending away the largest surplus in history and adding 2 trillion to our national debt

7. Calling a bill that increases cutting down forests Healthy Forests and a bill that lowers emission standards and fines and thus increases air pollution as well as Mercury and many other toxic substance emmisions the Clean Air Act.

8. Saying that he supports states rights while consistently cutting state funding to the point that colleges across the US had to raise tuitions by alarming amounts.

9. His federal budget deficits are larger than any president's in American history; in fact TWICE as large as any previous record! After he promised to cut govt spending.

10. Pleding 15 billion to help fight AIDs publically (and taking credit for this) and then specifically asking congress to stop trying to increase AIDs funding and to lower it to 2 billion.

11. Pledging to eliminate Al Queda and then removing troops and funding from Afganistan to the point where Al Queda has reemerged all over Afganistan.

12. Stating that he supports a small noninterventionist govt. and then declaring a war on porn such as that found on HBO or can be rented in hotel rooms, supporting sodomy laws that regulate what two consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own bed room and calling gays sinful and immoral, and passing the patriot acts which allow the govt to lock people up indefinately without any evidence, giving them a trial or even telling them or their families why they are in jail.

13. Saying in the 2000 debate that that US should not be engaged in nation building activities. Now it's clear that since he took office, he had his eye on regime change in Iraq, even before 9/11. In addition, the Patriot act expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, and engage various forms of surveillance, including internet monitoring and wiretapping. It gives the FBI access to American citizens' highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records without notification or permission, and allows them to investigate individuals without probable cause of a crime.

14. Changing his justification of the war from wmds to wmd program related activities.

15. He has established the beginnings of a Medicare prescription drug plan that ALONE will soon cost taxpayers TWICE as much as federal welfare EVER DID! And the ironic things is that the plan hands out large entitlements to pharamcetical companies but provides very little aid to seniors themsleves and will cost many seniors more than they used to pay. The plan also takes away the governments right to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices or the right to import the same drugs from Canada for significantly cheaper.

16. Taking credit for having the McCain Finegold bill passed in his administration after threatening to veto the bill and pleading with republicans not to support it.

Now if those weren't waffles, I don't know what are.

But what's worse than the waffles are outright lies.

The Bush administration threatened to have fired a guy if he revealed the true cost of the Medicare bill to congress before they vote on it. Bush told congress that it would cost only half as much as Bush already knew it would cost.

The Bush administration made fake news clips that sounded like an actual news story done by an actual reporter (a reporter who we later found out never existed) speaking favorably of the Medicare bill and then sent them to local tv stations, many of which ran them thinkin they were news stories.

Bush specifically claimed that there was a link between Saddam and Al Queda when he knew that no evidence of such a link exists.

And those are just off the top off my head.

There are many more examples out there. Some can be found at americanprogress.org
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 836 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 08:06 pm
Centroles, Trying to compare apples and oranges never works. Each individual has strengths and weaknesses. Most of us liberals and moderates know most of Bush's weaknesses - and wafflings. We need to evaluate Kerry on his own without comparing him to anybody else. Is he trustworthy? Is his initiatives to move this country forward realistic and workable, or is he making promises only to win votes. We still have several months before we must make our decision, so I'm willing to listen more before making up my mind. I don't expect perfection, but I'll not buy a pig in a poke.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 10:03 pm
Nicely done all the same, Centroles!
People ought to know the facts before branding someone with a negative term for doing positive things..
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 10:58 pm
CI,

I personally would prefer a leader that has a record of changing their mind based on new information to a more practical view over a leader that stubbornly and childishly clings to one view regardless of what new information emerges.

Nineteen years worth of legislation taken out of context is myraid with changes in opinion (as circumstances change over time).

"It helps Bush that when he backslides, he is typically shifting to a popular position from an unpopular one. Kerry reverses himself more subtly, over time and often with an intricate explanation, none of which can fit in a 30-sec ad.... circumstances have changed between any given flip and flop." (Time, April 12, 2004)

Can Kerry lead this country well, I am certain he can.

He's been on the senate for 19 years. He knows the issues inside and out. The fact that he changed his stance on many things proves to me that

a.) he's not stubborn

b.) he actually takes the current situation and new information into account

c.) he's looked at the vast majority of the issues from both perspectives and thus is very capable coming up with compromises that both sides can get behind.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Apr, 2004 11:12 pm
We still have plenty of time to listen to Kerry and anybody else that wants to challenge Bush II. I'm going to play wait and see; no need to jump onto the band wagon just yet.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 11:31 am
bump
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 11:35 am
I care more about them getting it right than sticking with something.

Sticking with something only counts if it's the right thing.

Obdurate when right is very different from obdurate when wrong.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 02:48 pm
exactly
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kerry vs. Bush - Flip Flops Galore....
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 06:13:35