When Mr. Kerry is called the most Liberal, it is generally his voting record which is being referenced. That is, in his career as a member of Congress, his votes (the ones he’s actually cast) have come down in favor of those causes most(not necessarily all) have deemed liberal. Among these would be pro-minimum wage, anti-tax cuts, etc.
The flip-flop issue mainly references the fact that in interviews and speeches he has said a number of things that have a tendency to form a pattern of contradiction, i.e. “I voted for it before I voted against it”. Another example of this would be Kerry, a supposed lifelong Catholic, being pro-abortion. These two issues would appear, at best extremely difficult to reconcile.
So the difference would appear to be his OFFICIAL record(very liberal) vs. his unofficial record(all over the place).
Well, yeah, it helps in the sense that just repeating the lies that the RNC has told us helps us to understand them better. It might help a little more if you actually backed up some of your claims.
And, you might want to explain why one can’t be Catholic, personally opposed to abortion, but believe strongly that one’s own personal religious views should not be forced onto everybody else.
And, by the way, the whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” thing, while a poor choice of words, has been explained and debunked ad nauseum here. If you are incapable of understanding how the Senate works and how Senators vote then you should just learn about it rather than putting your ignorance of these topics on display.
Well, yeah, it helps in the sense that just repeating the lies that the RNC has told us helps us to understand them better. It might help a little more if you actually backed up some of your claims (like the “most liberal” one which is based on just the year 2003 and has been debunked in the very thread you are posting in).
And, you might want to explain why one can’t be Catholic, personally opposed to abortion, but believe strongly that one’s own personal religious views should not be forced onto everybody else.
And, by the way, the whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” thing, while a poor choice of words, has been explained and debunked ad nauseum here. If you are incapable of understanding how the Senate works and how Senators vote then you should just learn about it rather than putting your ignorance of these topics on display.
But this is not true. Kerry was found to be most liberal in one study which covered a relatively short time period. And the study was flawed for reasons that John Mace and jshore explained. The Bush cheerleaders (i occasionally listen to Sean Hannity) are acting as if Kerry is currently the most liberal and has been the most liberal throughout his career.
So, conservatives can latch onto these two contradicting ideas because one is an outright lie and the other has grains of truth.
At the RNC, Cheney specifically set up a pattern - he voted for X, then he voted against it.
I didn’t know the ‘most liberal’ charge was based on one year, most of which saw Kerry campaigning, only showing up for close votes or otherwise important votes. So that charge was even more disingenuous than I imagined.
That’s Japanese, not Chinese. Anglicized version of Ah, so desu ka or Ah, so desu ne, both meaning Yes, it is[n’t], although the negative form is understood to mean the same as the affirmative form.
You might want to explain how Catholic GOP politicians can support the death penalty which is contrary to Catholic doctrine and yet never get called on that particular ‘flip-flop’ the way Kerry gets called on his abortion views.
Excellent point. And, do we also get to call all Catholics who supported the Iraq war “flip-floppers”? We’re going to need lots of pairs of flip-flops to go around!
If it makes you feel better, yes. Of course there is no guarantee that the flip-flop label will stick, as it has to Kerry.
Actually, I don’t fully understand your reasoning here. You might call such a person “inconsistent”, but flip-flop refers to someone who wants to be on both sides of the same issue, tayloring his message to the particular audience or particular political wind blowing at the time.
And of course ALL politicians do this to an extent. For some, though, the nickname sticks more than others.
Well, I don’t understand the reasoning either as it is not mine. We were just taking riserius1’s reasoning re-quoted below to it’s logical conclusion. I am in no way endorsing that reasoning!!! I think it is a silly use of the word “flip-flop”. (Or I suppose you could read his statement to be that this would be an example of “a pattern of contradiction”…but whatever. It makes little sense either way!)
Well,glad I was able to help you understand the RNC lies better. Perhaps YOU could help me understand DNC lies better?
(No, I’m not going to give specific examples;you didn’t either.)
I am Catholic myself;I am both anti-abortion and pro-Death Penalty. I see no contradiction between these views. A murderer(or for that matter any criminal) is someone that has violateed the social contract, and therefore must be punished. A baby has done nothing to anyone except come into being, an event that it had virtually no say-so in.
Abortion is murder. The death penalty is as much murder as incarceration is kidnapping.
Note that I do not try and force this view on anyone, I am simply stating my belief as I see it. No one is forcing Mr. Kerry to believe or disbelieve anything what they are saying is that the doctrine/religion to which he professses to belong to has certain positions which his views run contrary to.
I, myself, am in disagreement with the church’s stance on the death penalty(as already stated elsewhere in this thread). Does this mean I can’t count myself as Catholic? Of course not. But, I ain’t runnin’ for nothing, either.
I have seen a ton of threads discussing the “vote” statement. Were there any specifically that you thought would be of interest to me? I apologize, but I do not have the time to go sifting through all the different trains of thought. Perhaps someone who is not ignorant such as yourself could show me where to start.
Finally, I do not work at the Senate(although , apparently, you do). I am pretty sure the issue in question was only voted on once(if indeed it was, I apologize. Cite, please?).
I again apologize, I was of the impression that the OP wanted an actual attempt at explanation. I understand now that it was actually a preamble to the latest “conservatives are evil liars” thread.
To be honest, by this point I have no idea what your original point is then. Do you think that one is disqualified from calling oneself a Catholic if one does not agree with the Church’s stance on every political issue provided you are running for political office…but otherwise it is okay?
How totally bizarre! Did you know, by the way, that many people professed concern when our first (only?) Catholic President, John F. Kennedy, was running for office that he would take his marching orders from the Catholic Church. To me, it seems good that Kerry is able to separate his religious faith from his politics somewhat. He understands that while he may think that abortion is wrong, he doesn’t necessarily have the right to foist this view on everyone else. (He may also believe that there are better ways to reduce abortion than to make it illegal, like providing better sex education and access to contraceptives [which admittedly goes against another church doctrine].)
So, besides the fact that he added misguided soundbite summary statement at the end that has allowed the Republicans to jump on it, his position is perfectly defensible: His vote was a protest against the fact that there was no provision to pay for the Iraq war. (And, I should note that it was really a “protest” in the sense that it was going to pass with or without his vote. And, even if they had managed to get enough votes to block it, that only means that there would have had to be negotiations about the bill and compromises, perhaps including making a provision to pay for it…which IMHO would have produced a better bill…before it was finally passed.)
Well, the point is not that we don’t welcome explanations but that we don’t particularly welcome lame ones (except in the sense that they are kind of fun to tear apart).
No, I wanted an actual attempt at an explanation. I suspected there was a lot of sleight of hand involved, of course, because the statements are, on the face of them, mutually exclusive. I wanted to know what the sleight-of-hand was.
By the way, as I said in another thread, I’d like to see Kerry go on the offense on this flip-flop issue. For example, in regards to the Iraq war:
[:
(Bolding mine.)
[url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5941108/]George Bush and his spokespeople several times in the last few months:](]George W. Bush on September 19, 2002[/url) (This particular example is from a Sept 8, 2004 article.)
So, Mr, President, which is it that John Kerry voted for: Did he vote “for the war” or did he vote “to keep the peace”? [Or were you simply lying about this “keep the peace” stuff from the beginning and there was really next to nothing that would have deterred you from going to war, as is now fairly obvious…and was suspected by many of us at the time?]
(And, in fact, I believe in his speech on the Senate floor at the time, Kerry made it very clear what his expectations were in voting for the resolution.)
I neek neek.