Signs of the Time: Kerrys Rant Backfires

I have been thinking this for quite sometime and now, I see it coiming full circle and in truth, starting to backfire.
Kerry, as others, have been heavily ranting on Bush and the administrations handling of Iraq.
It seems that those who are truly against this war, that are truly devoted anti-war protestors are growing increasingly weary of Kerry's FLIP-FLOPPING and rhetoric:
Kerry Faults Bush on Iraq, Draws Heckler

Kerry backed the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq, but since then has been harshly critical of Bush's foreign policy. Maintaining his support for the military operation while challenging the Republican incumbent � and appealing to the Democratic base � has proven to be a tough dilemma for Kerry, evident by Wednesday's events.

Further down:

During a question-and-answer session with the audience, retired college professor Walter Daum angrily accused Kerry of backing an imperialist policy in Iraq and called on the candidate to demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"You voted for this," Daum shouted. As he spoke, a group stood silently and unfurled a large sign that read, "Kerry take a stand: Troops out now."

"You're not listening," an exasperated Kerry said at one point.

No Mr. "I am a Flip-flopper" Kerry, it seems that your rhetoric and that of your party is going to backfire in your faces....
IMHO, keep running your mouths, seriously.


seekerof

See, that's the problem politicians have running for election -- their voting records are public domain. Many, it seems, don't think the people care enough or are smart enough to look in on them, and spout what the crowd wants to hear to get elected. Some of them get away with it, too, so we have to keep an eye on all of them.

This is running on national primetime news as I currently speak. NBC just showed it.


seekerof

well I can't argue that Kerry isn't a scum bad. He is and like any other politician he will say what ever he thinks people want to hear to put himself on top.

To the issue of his voting record: If you want to represent the people you have to understand that circumstances change and peoples opinion change on topics in light of an ever changing environment in order to do your job you have to keep up with that in order to properly represent the people. I wouldn't except anything less.

We could also compare Kerry's record for flip-flops with Bush's record for flip-flops. We could start with the various reasons he gave for attacking Iraq.

Heh, seeker, it is becoming quite obvious me and you are on the opposite sides on quite a few issues. Have I found my arch-nemesis finally? Oh well, may it continue to be fun.

Now, please, as a Bush supporter you have NO room to call Kerry a flip-flopper.

Please refer to: Flip-flopping flip-flopper

Another issue not touched upon here is Bush saying Gay Marriage should be left to the states. My, we've come along way, haven't we?

I think the ultimate flip-flop will be if the Iraqis elect someone who doesn't like America, will Bush allow them to stay in office (assuming Bush himself is still in office when it happens) despite preaching free elections and self-government.

Now in the last post you told me to do my research. In nearly every case something about the circumstances at the time Kerry casted his vote for or against something has changed, which may prompt a change in opinion.

For example: The Iraq War. Kerry voted for the war after being told and basically guaranteed that Saddam had WMDs. I know I was for the war thinking that as I know many people were. However, once it became evident there probably were no WMDs, people's opinions changed. Mine did, so did Kerrys.


And, also, my research has led me to this analysis of John Kerry's alleged "Flip-flops." Credit goes to Matthew Yglesias written in the American Prospect Online

The dubious cogency of this critique is well captured by the line, "For tax cuts, and against them." Yes, it's true, John Kerry believes that it is right to cut certain taxes under certain circumstances and wrong to cut other taxes under other circumstances. Hard to disagree with that. And is Bush really for cutting all taxes, all the time, no matter what? How does he propose to finance the government? When you run your oil company into the ground, your father's Saudi friends can bail you out, but as an approach to the federal budget this method is somewhat flawed.

Is Kerry both for the Patriot Act and against it? Well, he voted for it, and now he criticizes it, so he must be inconsistent. Howard Dean's campaign pioneered this argument; it didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now. First off, read the law. You can download it here from a special Department of Justice website dedicated to singing the bill's praises. Kerry voted for the bill because he believed that the law, in all its 132 pages of glory, would do more good than harm. That's what Senators do. Does that mean he thinks each and every word written on each and every page is a good idea? Of course not, and as president he'll have the opportunity to alter the law. Kerry's website offers five proposed improvements to the Patriot Act. I happen to think he's right about only four of them. So would it be inconsistent of me to prefer Kerry to Bush on the question of the Patriot Act? Of course not -- there are two options, and Kerry is the better of the two. He's not perfect, but I'll support him. Just as Kerry supported an imperfect law he regarded as better than nothing.

On NAFTA, a flip-flop is even harder to find. Kerry supported the treaty; nowhere in his trade issues page is there any suggestion that he intends to abrogate it. Rather, "John Kerry will also order an immediate 120-day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations." One wonders what part of this Bush disagrees with -- does he think our trade partners should evade their obligations, or is he simply opposed to finding out whether or not they are doing so?...

Given a choice between Kerry's nuance and Bush's policy of, well, lying about what he wants to do, I think I'll stick with Kerry.

Of course, I came across an example of Kerry flip-flopping completely during the Gulf War, but every politician flip-flops. Many of the alleged "flip-flops" by Kerry are people reading into things that aren't there and twisting it to support their opinion. Serving in politics 20 years, you're more than likely going to change your mind on things.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
well I can't argue that Kerry isn't a scum bad. He is and like any other politician he will say what ever he thinks people want to hear to put himself on top.

To the issue of his voting record: If you want to represent the people you have to understand that circumstances change and peoples opinion change on topics in light of an ever changing environment in order to do your job you have to keep up with that in order to properly represent the people. I wouldn't except anything less.

That's absloutly valid, and hadn't thought of it. However, if it is a consistant voting record, chances are it will stay consistant. Also, you can look at previous elections: If the politician said something like "Read my lips, no new taxes" and did the opposite, and consistantly has that kind of record, we can count on that person to continue on that path. Note: This isn't directed at any politician, just a generalization.

...but every politician flip-flops

Making excuses for Kerry, Cutwolf?
The cliche' that "every" politician "flip-flops" amy have merit, but it is increasing showing that Kerry is becoming King of doing such.
Gee, I thought Dean was bad.....

I guess you didn't understand or fathom what my rant was concerning, eh?
Kerry has or had most of the anti-war voters with him....he continues to do his rhetoric bit about Iraq, and with such a continued policy, it is increasingly becoming apparent that this is and will backfire in front of his face and on the Democratic party, and that Cutwolf, is per political analyists.

The man is running into a 'catch-22' on this issue, especially enlight of his past saying, beliefs, and opinions on Iraq, on Iraqi WMD, etc.

Again, I beg you guys to get Kerry to keep running his mouth on this issue....I only how that cow pie that lands back in his face over this issue, taste and smells just like the rhetorical BS he is currently feeding to the American people!


seekerof

You seem to have a penchant for ignoring the substance of people's posts and taking one line out of it. Dispute the passage I quoted about Bush's flip-flops, not just the fact I said every politician flip-flops (which, by the way, was thrown in there to show I am neutral - I would vote for Nader but I am going to miss being able to vote by 1 month as I turn 18 in December).

And here is a good, mostly unbiased article from Time

Both candidates have their share of flip-flops


Edits were for obvious grammatical mistakes.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Cutwolf]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Cutwolf]

The good and honorable seekerof,

Many moons have passed since my participation in the pit, so please excuse this belated question.

Am I too understand, that even with all of Kerry's waffle topics, you believe Cheney is still the right man for the job? This is an interesting snip of Clarke�s book:

I had known Dick Cheney for a dozen years and for that long been fascinated at how complex a person he was. On the surface, he was quiet and soft-spoken. Below that surface calm ran strong, almost extreme beliefs. He had been one of the five most radical conservatives in the Congress. The quiet often hid views that would seem out of place if aired more broadly. It had been speculated in the press that he would really be the president of national security affairs, not the inexperienced Governor from Texas.

In response to the intent of your thread, Kerry has obviously waffled on Iraq. That is not the issue though. Cheney made the decision and we will have a presence in Iraq for a very long time, regardless of 04 and 08 elections. The operative question is simple; �Who will do a better job of running Iraq?�

And why we�re talking waffles, let�s not forget these tasty tid-bits from the Bush 00 campaign:

�I do not believe the United States military should be used for nation-building�

�I will treat the use of American military with benevolence�

Another interesting Clarke snippet:

Producing the 150,000 U.S. forces in the Iraqi theater has badly stretched the Army. Most of the maneuver brigades in the Army are deployed overseas. Those left in the U.S. are too few to maintain the contingency reserve or the training base necessary. National Guard and Reserve personnel have been mobilized for extended service, disrupting the lives of tens of thousands who counted on their civilian to salaries to pay mortgages and other family expenses. The irony is that during the 2000 presidential campaign, the Bush team charged that peacekeeping missions had overstretched the U.S. Army. The noted that battalions that had engaged in peacekeeping were not passing in sections because they had not been able to keep up with training proficiency and testing. By those measures, The Bush administration has now far more badly damaged the United States Army. As Army National Guard and Reserve reenlistments plummet, the damage will grow. The condition of the Army is of concern because unlike Iraq, which showed no sign of attacking us, North Korea regularly threatens us with war. If that were to happen with the Army tied down in Iraq and our reserves stretched, the outcome might not be favorable.�

And then there�s this headline:

North Korea says standoff with US at "brink of nuclear war"
sg.news.yahoo.com...

Hope all is well�kukla

Well, this is obviously going to turn into another battle between democrats and republicans...but I would just like to say that I don't go for one party or the other, and I don't like Kerry much more than Bush (but imo he would be an improvement..maybe?)...I just want this damn war over, and the imperialism to stop, I will vote for whichever candidate will best do their job to see that this happens, whether it be Kerry, Nader, whoever...

Ever think it was because Bush lied about the WMDs and the threat that Saddam posed? Kerry believed the lie and voted with Bush. Then, he DISCOVERED the lie and switched. Pretty much answers that. No mystery here. THINK PEOPLE.

Originally posted by Colonel
Ever think it was because Bush lied about the WMDs and the threat that Saddam posed? Kerry believed the lie and voted with Bush. Then, he DISCOVERED the lie and switched. Pretty much answers that. No mystery here. THINK PEOPLE.

I am certainly more inclined to believe that Kerry, a man of considerable money, would have savvy campaign managers who would mold his dynamic.

It is popular to bash the president as many are out of sorts, confussed, ignorant about much of what is going on.

I think it much more likely that he try to pick up steam on the blaim train than to really push his agenda. You don't get free media exposure (as much at least) for being tame and platform based.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

To the issue of his voting record: If you want to represent the people you have to understand that circumstances change and peoples opinion change on topics in light of an ever changing environment in order to do your job you have to keep up with that in order to properly represent the people. I wouldn't except anything less.

_____________

Very true, JOHNSmith.

This is the reason why it's so diificult for a US Senator of either party that's been around for awhile to get elected president. You've made hundreds of votes over the years and some of them are bound to appear contradictory. Politics is the art of compromise in order to reach the best good for the citizenry. Unfortunately too many politicians make an ideology out of it, and compromise goes out the window. Plus, as was pointed out, times, circumstances, and people change and so a senator needs to be flexible in order to represent his constituency. Not flip-floppy, but flexible.

___________________

And for the Liberals screaming an immediate pull out....that's impossible. It's the Left Wing that will slam Kerry on this.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
well I can't argue that Kerry isn't a scum bad. He is and like any other politician he will say what ever he thinks people want to hear to put himself on top.

To the issue of his voting record: If you want to represent the people you have to understand that circumstances change and peoples opinion change on topics in light of an ever changing environment in order to do your job you have to keep up with that in order to properly represent the people. I wouldn't except anything less.

Come on now!

"ever changing environment", "properly represent the people","opinions change"

John F'n Kerry's opinion changes everytime the audience changes.

Seem's as though JOHNSmith (if that is his real name) has grown to tolerate and even embrace the Rhetoric of VASCITLATORS. Nice to see how gullable the Liberal Left is!


[Edited on 4-15-2004 by krankinkx]

Originally posted by Colonel
Ever think it was because Bush lied about the WMDs and the threat that Saddam posed? Kerry believed the lie and voted with Bush. Then, he DISCOVERED the lie and switched. Pretty much answers that. No mystery here. THINK PEOPLE.

Ever think Bush was lied to also? Oh hell no you didn't...that would require you to think.

See, I don't think anyone here disputes what you say...but it is completely jaded. You will believe Kerry was lied to but not Bush. Why exactly? Because of the party name? Because of a bias you have?

Lets just examine that bastion of truth...John Kerry.

Kerry commanded his first swift boat, No. 44, from December 1968 through January 1969. He received no medals while serving on this craft. While in command of Swift Boat 44, Kerry and crew operated without prudence in a Free Fire Zone, carelessly firing at targets of opportunity racking up a number of enemy kills and some civilians. His body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.

"It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child," Kerry later said about the dead baby. "But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."

What did others have to say about his service?
�[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me � 30 years ago when he was still CNO �that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.�We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,� the admiral said. �Bud� Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions � but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.� And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

www.frontpagemag.com...

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier.

When Kerry's Patrol Craft Fast 94 that he was later assigned to, received a B-40 rocket shot from shore, beached his craft again, in the center of the enemy position. An enemy soldier sprang up from a hole not ten feet from Patrol Craft 94 and fled. The boat's machine gunner hit and wounded the fleeing Viet Cong as he darted behind a hootch. The twin .50s gunner fired at the Viet Cong. He said he "laid 50 rounds" into the hootch before Kerry leaped from the boat and dashed in to administer a "coup de grace" to the wounded Viet Cong. Kerry returned with the B-40 rocket and launcher. Kerry was given a Silver Star for his action, which could possibly have been constituted a war crime.

Zeddicus - thanks for the story

I never knew Kerry had such a dubious combat record. However, though I CAN NOT STAND HIM, I will hold back from blasting him for this as I was neither there, nor do I have any military experience, and so feel I could not judge him on this. But seriously - that is sick - a 12 year old boy? A woman and her child? Just plain sick.

Kerrys act is getting old. He seemingly will say ANYTHING in order to get a vote. He has time and time again proven that he is unable to take a firm stance on a topic and then stick with that stance. It is scary that people think this guy can lead a country, since HE odesn't even know what he believes.