How many times can one man flip flop?

jimnyc

...
Aug 28, 2003
19,772
271
83
New York
Every day I read another story about how this guy has reversed decisions and changed his stance on major issues. He condems things that he has praised earlier. This mans record speaks for itself, and it's pitiful.

Kerry Praised Clinton for Snubbing Iraq War Allies

Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has repeatedly slammed President Bush for not getting the cooperation of European allies before attacking Iraq last year.

But in 1997, Kerry praised President Clinton for preparing to attack Iraq by deploying ships, aircraft and troops over the objections of France and Russia.

In a November 1997 audiotape broadcast by WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Monday, Kerry painted Clinton as resolute for putting U.S. war plans against Baghdad in motion.

"The president has, in effect, put military action on the table," he told CNN's "Crossfire."

"Secretary Cohen canceled his trip, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff canceled a trip, troops are deployed, the aircraft carriers are being brandished. There's no misunderstanding here about where the United States is prepared to go," the Massachusetts Democrat assured.

Kerry praised the Clinton White House for thumbing its nose at our European allies.

"Clearly the allies may not like it," said the top Democrat, before suggesting that France and Russia were spineless.

"Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?" he railed.

Kerry also praised the White House for giving the United Nations the brush-off.

"The [Clinton] administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by [U.S. weapons inspector Richard] Butler."

Kerry defended President Clinton's go-it-alone war plan as the best way to protect U.S. national security, telling "Crossfire," "I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."

Said WABC's Crowley after airing the revealing tape, "It's obvious that the real reason Kerry was for military action last time around in 1997 and not now is because the last time it was a Democratic president thinking about doing it."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/9/105907.shtml
 
God this guy is horrible. Like most lib's what good for the goose is not good for the Gander. typical
 
Why do you think alot of liberals are scared? They realize they just nominated a guy that has serious problems. They are about ready to implode and i think November of 2004 will see it happen.

My only hope is that the extreme left doesnt freak out so much about Bush winning that they decide to start getting militant. we could have some serious problems then.
 
Kerry 48%, Bush 44%.

That's from likely voters with Nader included as a candidate. Without Nader, the spread is 9%. Who did you say was running scared?
 
Originally posted by shergald
Kerry 48%, Bush 44%.

That's from likely voters with Nader included as a candidate. Without Nader, the spread is 9%. Who did you say was running scared?

And I can give you another poll right now that has Bush in the lead.

Kerry has been campaigning for months on end. GW has been campaigning via TV ads for one week!

Your running with a loser, and I mean that 2 ways.
 
Originally posted by shergald
Kerry 48%, Bush 44%.

That's from likely voters with Nader included as a candidate. Without Nader, the spread is 9%. Who did you say was running scared?
I have no doubt there is some poll that reflects those numbers, please include a link for such information, otherwise it really doesn't hold much weight.
 
Originally posted by shergald
Kerry 48%, Bush 44%.

That's from likely voters with Nader included as a candidate. Without Nader, the spread is 9%. Who did you say was running scared?

Here you go:

The Republican incumbent had 46 percent support, Democrat Kerry had 45 percent and Nader, the 2000 Green Party candidate who entered the race last month, was at 6 percent in the survey conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040306/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_president_19

These polls are as useless as John Kerry.
 
Not certain but I think it was the Washington Post. Actually MSNBC carried some stories as well reporting that Bush was still sliding from the Democratic primary bashing he took. This flipflop theme is not going to do it. People are interested in the issues not candidate bashing. This little group seems to be winning the election all by itself, each member reinforcing the others' mud, but nobody else is listening. Cathartic, though. I suspect.
 
Originally posted by shergald
People are interested in the issues not candidate bashing.

And won't they be surprised to find out John Kerry has flip flopped on tens and tens of major issues, including most that will be important with this election. Iraq, economy, foreign relations, gay marriage, patriot act, no child left behind, abortion... And that's just a few that America will soon find out that he changed his tune on when the mood hit him.
 
Originally posted by shergald
People are interested in the issues not candidate bashing.
True, issues are important. However we are voting for a canidate partly based on how that person as performed in the past to gain perspective on how that person will perform his job for us in the future. Therefore pointing out Kerrys numerous flip-flops on issues is very relavent.
 
We are talking here about a politician who will offer a Democratic agenda on the issues if he is elected. Obviously, he will work on the deficit, social security, Iraq, terrorism, etc. which will reflect that Democratic agenda. The only people who are concerned about his changing views are staunch REpublicans who will find something or another to convince others that he should not be president. On Democratic sites, the opposite is occurring: Bush is found to be hopelessly flawed and leading the country into ruin. You have to vote for the candidate's philosophy, not the person. Clinton was an extremely flawed person, but he was an exquisite president who did just what Bush has been unable to do. Now I know this will bring a lot of angry replies, but so be it. No one is listening anyway, except you angry Republicans, who do not take well to dissent from your own opinions. What you should do is go on other sites where there are individuals who don't agree with you and engage in reasonable debate. Nobody here is ready or willing to consider an alternative view, e.g., to believe that Bush has been a horrible president whether we are talking domestic policy or foreign policy.
 
Originally posted by shergald
People are interested in the issues not candidate bashing.

I am interested in the issues, John Kerry is interested in bashing and can't go a speech with out framing himself with how bush is doing something wrong. He consistently publicly accuses bush of slandering him, while I have yet to see any major report from the other side of the ring validating his yelps. Right now John Kerry may as well be barking at the moon.
 
Originally posted by shergald
The only people who are concerned about his changing views are staunch REpublicans who will find something or another to convince others that he should not be president.

Do you really believe this?

You don't think anyone else, at all, besides the republicans are concerned with his record?

That's the same as saying the Dems don't care if they put someone in office who's word is as good as a ping pong ball.

You crack me up though. I appreciate your humor this evening. :laugh:
 
O.k. shergald. If you have beliefs about President Bush on how he is conducting the office fine. But the topic at hand is Kerry's flip-floping on issues.

We will be voting for a man this fall to be the chief administrator of the our Federal Government. Within that job decisions will be made, very hard decisions. The person we vote for should show the ability to make the best consistant decisions for the country. Kerry's continued mounting evidence of contradicting himself on issues does not promote him as being the best canidate for the job.
 
shergald let me address some of your poinit topics. Lets engage in a debate,

1st."We are talking here about a politician who will offer a Democratic agenda on the issues if he is elected. Obviously, he will work on the deficit, social security, Iraq, terrorism, etc. which will reflect that Democratic agenda"

what is this democratic agenda. that's the main issue with this election. which agenda will help the country the most. Me and many people belive that it is the republican agenda that will help i the most. But guess what Bush doesn't exactly follow the republican agenda to the T. and so it goes that Kerry doesn't follow the dem agenda to teh T either. Kerry and Bush have two very opposing views on the direction that the US should take. The problem is that in these boards is where the party message is heard. It si not heard on most TV news shows and it is not heard on most print media. The problem is that Kerry is being painted as this great untouchable when in reality this man has many, many faults. The public needs to be educated however the public wont. We people who actually discuss these topics are a mionrity. The general electorite will vote based on who has a better charecter or who is a better protrayer of ideas. This was fine 10 years ago but in todays world this is a bad idea. That is why Kerry's inconsitancies be pointed out so the public can make up it's mind on how they should vote.

2nd."The only people who are concerned about his changing views are staunch REpublicans who will find something or another to convince others that he should not be president"

THis is exactly the point, we feel that this man would be detrimental to the cause of america. he would take us back and erase all the progress we've made over the past three years

3rd"You have to vote for the candidate's philosophy, not the person. Clinton was an extremely flawed person, but he was an exquisite president who did just what Bush has been unable to do."

Clinton was pushed so far to the center that most republicans didn't mind sidding with him. The country was not as polirized as it is today

4th"Now I know this will bring a lot of angry replies, but so be it. No one is listening anyway, except you angry Republicans, who do not take well to dissent from your own opinions."

We take offence becaue this guy has been giving a free pass. Bush bashers get away with everything and Bush friends get cesured, is this fair? I don't think so, so we attack the left.


5th"What you should do is go on other sites where there are individuals who don't agree with you and engage in reasonable debate. Nobody here is ready or willing to consider an alternative view, e.g., to believe that Bush has been a horrible president whether we are talking domestic policy or foreign policy"

I've been to those sites and they are just up in arms against the right as I am against the left. it's polarization, the way things are going in this country you have to make a choice,
war
tax cuts
gay marriage
entitelment programs
ect..
and Bush beliefs the way i do on these issues and Kerry has made a change at least once on these issues.
 
There's nothing like the smell of a fresh asskicking in the morning. Good thread y'all. Sorry, shenanigans, or whatever your name was. You'll feel better tomorrow.
 
I believe it is Shergald, and even though that person takes a contrary position to myself in regards to politics, I do appreciate having a dialouge without crazy tin foil schemes or simple name calling. That I find refreshing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top