According to the article, it’s because he believed that was "“the right authority for the president to have.” He also believed that Bush misused his authority, as the following sentences in the article made clear.
Now: what talk, and why haven’t you withdrawn your previous claim now that you’ve been shown Kerry didn’t change his mind regarding the $87 billion?
Yes, as a matter of fact, he has read them.
He just didn’t understand them.
Stephe96, the point is that back in 1994, ten years before the Bush campaign, The Simpsons had this flip-flop joke. The Simpsons were ahead of its time. “Flip flop” will go into the history books as one of the Bush campaign’s main strategy. It’s the one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The funny thing is that from now the Republican party will be lampooned for the flip flop. Everyone will forever know what this means. Flip flop will go down in history. And the Simpsons writers knew all along - flip floper. Ha!
Huh? You say calling an opponent a ‘flip-flopper’ is “one of the oldest tricks in the book,” yet you seem to think it’s a big deal that The Simpsons used the term in 1994. Um. What is the point of this thread?
Mud slinging is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Resort to name-calling, derivise taunts, or silly chants. As I said, “The point is it’s the same old mud slinging, there’s nothing new.”
The “big deal” is that the Harvard-educated writers of The Simpsons had the political acumen to put in a joke back in 1994 which parodize the GOP in 2004.
You honestly don’t think any presidential candidates were called ‘flip-floppers’ prior to 1994?
So, anyway Stephe96, why haven’t you withdrawn your previous claim now that you’ve been shown Kerry didn’t change his mind regarding the $87 billion?
Why, that would be changing his position in response to new evidence. You know there’s a phrase for that don’t you?
And now you regurgitate yourself. Amazing.
What I said was accurate. If you consider it a personal attack, well, maybe it’s time for some self-reflection.
-Joe
What “claim” are you talking about? I quoted Kerry accurately and said that it was tough to recover from. I stand by that. As for your explanation about what Kerry really meant with his comment, allow me to help you out. Kerry voted against the $87 billion. That’s it. No ifs, ands or buts. But when the political wind started changing, Kerry decided to try and let people know that he was also on the other side of the issue at one point. Hence, his “I voted for it before I voted against it” blunder. He wanted to be on both sides of the issue, depending upon political convenience.
By the way, I love the euphemisms you guys come up with. From your explanation, Kerry wanted “roll back the tax break for people making $400,000/year…” Man, it kills you guys to say “raise taxes,” huh?
Thanks for finally answering my question. You really honestly don’t understand, and haven’t simply been playing partisan politics. Good to know.
Roll back, I believe, means taking back the insane tax cut that a certain President wanted while raising spending to pay for an unnecessary war that this same President wanted.
No. As I explained to you, that’s not it. Your ignoring the not-so-subtle detalis doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
All your handwaving about how Kerry changed his explanation to suit the political landscape doesn’t hold water. Kerry’s vote was cast before the Republicans decided this was an issue, and Kerry’s explanation for his vote has been consistent. Consistency is the antithesis of flip-floppery.
No, not a bit. For instance: I would very much like to see the Alberta Government raise taxes of corporations that lay off local workers to make use of cheap, overseas labour. The whole point of lowering their taxes in the first place was to entice them here to provide jobs: no jobs, no tax breaks. But in this case the phrase “raise taxes” (whew!) isn’t sufficiently descriptive.
…grumble…grumble…
Really? Whod’a thunk it?
-Joe
Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I have a good grasp of history. Now I’m just trying to understand causal mechanisms.
Kerry voted for a bill that would have raised the $87 billion by killing an ill-conceived tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Bush would have vetoed it, had it passed. Instead, a bill that did not address where the money came from passed. So Bush was against the bill before he was for it. Flip-flopper!
Give me just one National Convention where the delegates and other guests resorted to chanting, “Flip-flop! Fip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!”
Kerry’s biggest flaw was not in “flip-flopping”, because he didn’t, but in being unable to state his positions sufficiently clearly. “I voted for it before I voted against it” does not adequately express what he actually did.
Bush is not stupid. I used to think he was, but now I realize that he has a certain cunning and country charisma that appeals to a lot of people. I still don’t understand what people see in him, but there’s certainly something there. A few Dopers said as much way back when he was campaigning the first time around, but I didn’t see it until recently. Bush managed to connect with enough people and throw enough doubt on Kerry to win the election. Yeah, I know we could debate election procedures all over again, but if Kerry had been a better public speaker and had better strategists the margin wouldn’t have been so damn close.