Oh, you can believe both guys meant exacly what they said.
I’m not really taking a side here, just trying to understand where the “Bush said Kerry was unfit for the presidency” came from. It’s been stated twice on this thread, and I don’t believe it can be substantiated.
Bush is using the “flip flop” accusation as a campaign tactic. Alls fair in love and politics. Kerry can do one of three things:
Ignore it and hope it doesn’t stick
Counter it with the reasons he had for changing positions
Try to throw the same accusation back at Bush
I say he loses (this battle) if he picks 2 or 3, so best to go with #1 and attack Bush on where he is weakest (WMDs, the economy).
Not even the Ides of March, and the Bush campaign is already resorting to Plan B after the disatrously received 9/11 commercials, going negative on Kerry.
I can’t believe no one has called TBC on this nonsense. There was plenty of discussion on such a cabinet level position, and that discussion began BEFORE 9/11 when a bipartisan comittee and Clinton both recommended it. Bush scoffed at the idea even after 9/11, deriding the idea of creating a new gut-guzzling government agengy. Then he, in a rather brilliant move, flipped on it and came out for it… only with certain employment stipulations that the Democrats who had previously been pushing for it didn’t support. This had the effect of making it look like they were against the idea. While that was an expert political move, the fact is that this was a HUGE flip-flop for Bush.
And this was the first observation of TBS right out of the gate. There’s that old saying about when the clock strikes 13, how do you know which one was erroneous… How about the very first. Should we proceed to the second?
Thanks, Hentor and Apos! I was going to call TBC on that one 'cause I knew it was dead wrong but my quick google search failed to turn up a good link on it. I also didn’t realize that some forward-looking people had called for creation of such a department even before 9/11.
Yes, I am sure Sam Stone, John Mace, and all the rest of those folks must be just thrilled to have you on their side! I can tell you one thing: we’re certainly thrilled to have you on their side!
I find the whole Homeland Security episode rather strange. I guess the Bushies were pissed that the proposals for Homeland Security didn’t include nuclear weapons:
Above from http://www.informationclearinghouse/. For those in the ABB camp, you can sign up for a very good daily news summary with LOTS of links at this site.
But probably best to wait till mid-Friday to go there based on this message below (now I wonder who would want to do such a nasty thing? :rolleyes: ).
States’ rights is an issue which revolves around the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Therefore an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by definiton, is taking away some States’ Rights.
Actually, the word used first was not “said”, it was “insisted”, but i think a better word word would be “implies”. Bush is using this as a major campaign tactic, which means he is using this as a reason why he should be elected instead of Kerry. I think we all know what (s)he meant, let’s not lose the discussion by taking a modified statement too literally.
Although a fourth option would be a combination of 2 and 3. Explain some of your(Kerry’s) flip-flops. Then point out some of Bush’s flip-flops, but also explain them, giving them a pro-Bush spin. Then explain how it isn’t good to be “Steady In Changing Times”. Bush’s current campaign strategy would be shattered, and he’d have to start from scratch.
Although i doubt the Kerry campaign will go this route. It looks like he’s trying to play it safe … rifing the anti-Bush sentiment without pissing off too many people.
Of course, I was being sarcastic in saying that those of you of a conservative persuasion who actually make coherent arguments would be happy to have T_B_C around being “such a good researcher for the Conservative side.”
I can agree that some of the Bush flip-flops were warranted. I mean, wasn’t it obvious after 9/11 that it was necessary? TBC doesn’t really do himself any favors saying that nation-building was this 70’s era idea of supporting dictators. I was against nation-building too, but my opinions changed along with many others. There I won’t fault Bush. And surely Bush has had some flipflops.
But I got news for everyone here! Everone lies to get elected! The only politician running for president that had a serious chance that didn’t lie or flip flop (much) was Howard Dean. He wasn’t sinless either. I remember him having flipflops. Kerry has had plenty. Being in the Senate for 20 years you are going to have to make some changes. Bush is President and as a presidential cantidate you are going to have to waffle or do whatever to get elected. Its normal.
So every politician does it. You tell me one single politician that has never flipfloped or waffled or been untrue in his resolve, and I will be impressed. Actually I think that the best thing is to have a politician that has resolve but isn’t afraid to bargain for the greatest good. Its being pragmatic.
Now Bush comes along and accuses Kerry of being an untrustworthy waffling bastard. Its his right, and he has to drive Kerry’s negatives down, because if he doesn’t, Bush is in deep doodoo. The best way is to make attacks on his character, because individual positions can be respectfully disagreed with, but character flaws are forever. As a Democrat there are two ways to defend these kinds of attacks. Firstly you can try to go through them point by point like TBC did for Bush. But you’ll end up looking silly as TBC did. Or you can defend it as a normal part of politics, which is what trying to show Bush’s waffles does. Bush’s waffles vs. Kerry waffles doesn’t really bother me. Bush’s negatives are low enough and that point doesn’t need to be made. Bush’s positions at the moment are bad enough and his record is awful, so its not like we Democrats need to paint him as untrustworthy to win. Its pretty obvious at this point.
Just IMO, but I’d much rather follow someone who can change his views and beliefs as information and circumstances change, rather than someone who remains rigidly inflexible regardless of changes in the information and circumstances. Thus, “flip-flops” from Kerry and Bush don’t bother me at all.
However, for the Bush camp to accuse Kerry of being an unfit candidate because of this is stupid and hypocritical. Not that it’ll stop them from doing so, I’m sure.
I agree that the more dangerous kind of person is one like Bush who has a rigid, inflexible ideology and decides on the policy damn the facts and then even tries to twist the facts to fit the pre-set policy.
That is clearly what happened with the tax cuts, which were originally sold as a way to refund taxpayers for overpayment in a time of growing surplusses but then became a stimulus package when the economy tanked and the surplusses turned into deficits. Never mind that the tax cuts were not structured to provide very efficient stimulus when the economy needs it…Rather they were structured to give about the minimum stimulus bang for the maximum buck…and the bucks keep on building into perpetuity.
We now have evidence that Iraq was sold similarly. I.e., 9/11 and WMDs to terrorists just provided a convenient excuse to pursue the policy of overthrowing Saddam.
The correct motis operandi is
(1) assemble and weigh the facts.
(2) use these facts to formulate policy.
This President operates like this:
(1) formulate the policy based on your ideology.
(2) cherry-pick the facts (or use facts to make up justifications…“Oh, the economy is tanking, well now we’ll call our tax cut plan a stimulus package”) to sell the policy.
