Steady and Steadfast? Bush's flip flops

The Bush administration's strategy is to target Kerry's long voting record, making him out to be someone who has waffled. Bush is not one to talk. Take a look at some of his flip flops...


If Bush wants to compare flip-flops with Kerry�Bring it on!
By Mick Youther


The Bush Attack Machine started to define John Kerry as �a captive of special interests�. Then it came out that Bush had received more campaign contributions from Enron alone, than Kerry had received from lobbyists during all his years in the Senate; so the attack moved on to Plan B� defining Kerry as a flip-flopper and Bush as �steady and steadfast�.

They know that anyone who has been in the Senate for eighteen years will have a voting record that can be distorted to look bad. If a Senator voted against a bloated spending-bill that contained funding for breast cancer research, they can claim that Senator is against breast cancer research. Ask John McCain�they pulled that one on him in the 2000 primary.
www.... interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=685&POSTNUKESID=51b09ce158c970135f439656c771e226

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

So many intersting points. A few I remember and a few I did not know about.

If these flip flops are discussed widely, I don't see how BushCo's strategy could possibly work. The guy really doesn't have anything to run on with the exception of his cheerleading skills after 9-11, the ban on partial birth abortion (which I support) and the stance he took on stem cell research (which I also supported). Beyond that there's nothing! Nothing but failure.

I do not know if you can still count on what happened
after 9-11. It seems there may have been a problem with that as well.

I love watching Democrats and Republicans squabble. They accuse each other of different things when in fact they all do these things themselves, what a bunch of hypocrits.

Then I realise that these lying, murdering power/money hungry bastards (both sides) effectively run our lives, and it brings a tear to the eye.

It's time to start again people, the sooner we realise that the better.

Ok, searching....searching....searching....aha! Could this be liberally slanted news?

Now, I know some of those flip flops are real, but I am not sure on some of the others.

"Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion."

You don't think the amount of money spent on 9-11 and other related issues was going to bring the number, did you?

"Bush said he would, �enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. "

That's about the same percent as our inflation since he has taken office.

"Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11�then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation."

He is no longer completely obstructing it. He is trying to play ball now. Just kinda #ey that he won't meet before the whole panel. If he was obstructing it, there would be hell...that was one of the Clinton problems, if I am not mistaken

"Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds."

Nobody, and I repeat, NOBODY cares about Africa.

"Bush presented his �No Child Left Behind Program� with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families."

You cannot have it both ways. You want to see him lower the debt, but you want him to pay out all of this other stuff. Now, I know there has been some serious crap passed through with plenty of pork, but you cannot kill him on two things that oppose each other.

The rest of the stuff is alright though...

I want a genuine third party. That would at least make the one corporate party (Republicrats) sweat a little. Maybe a third and fourth party....

OXmank:

You cannot have it both ways. You want to see him lower the debt, but you want him to pay out all of this other stuff. Now, I know there has been some serious crap passed through with plenty of pork, but you cannot kill him on two things that oppose each other.

You can, too; if he said it.

How about if I have a party all of my own and everyone can pick me as the new President?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I want a genuine third party. That would at least make the one corporate party (Republicrats) sweat a little. Maybe a third and fourth party....

But they will be open to corruption and it's unavoidable as it's the way the system is now, it's far too little too late.

The whole system needs to be changed, the whole government has to go and start again. It is my belief that governments should be destroyed and rebuilt every hundred years or so to reflect the ideas of the times, and also because after this amount of time the government will always be corrupted as it's human nature.

Any new party, no matter how good it's intentions, will be snatched by the hands of corruption.

Originally posted by John Nada
I love watching Democrats and Republicans squabble. They accuse each other of different things when in fact they all do these things themselves, what a bunch of hypocrits.

Then I realise that these lying, murdering power/money hungry bastards (both sides) effectively run our lives, and it brings a tear to the eye.

It's time to start again people, the sooner we realise that the better.

I can agree with that. Kick them all out on their well-fed asses, ship them to Cambodia and let's start all over again. Not an honest one in the building...

Originally posted by MuseAndChimera
How about if I have a party all of my own and everyone can pick me as the new President?

You have my vote!

eastcoastkid the article did bring up interesting points but I have no way of knowing if it is a reliable source. Show me something that shows the site is reliable and I will believe it. Untill then I have no reason to believe the site.

Interventionmag.com is an excellent source. But there's plenty out there - even in the mainstream media - to back up the article's points.

If you have the time, take a look around that site. Or, you could do a google search on Bush's campaign/administration pledges. For example, he really roughed Gore up in the debates over his and Clinton's nation-building. He was dead against it. Now we're in Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan.. and it seems as though its never gonna end.

The problem I have with this list of flip-flops is that it is full of commentary of what Bush said he was going to do, and then commentary on what he ended up doing. It would be much more persuasive if there were actual quotes from him that conflicted or flip-flopped, or if he was quoted as saying one thing, but voted another. Things like "Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.". Well that's not surprising really. A Homeland Security Department proposed by Democrats? I don't think the one proposed by Democrats would be the one he would want.

I just randomly picked one out of the list. And there are some direct quotes, but not a direct quote then for the flip-flop side. A lot of it seems to be someone's interpretation of him flip-flopping. And I don't really like the guy. But I don't see him doing a lot of flip-flopping.

IMO, this fight between Bush and Kerry is just to entertain the public. Nothing more. Why? They are both part of Skull and Bones. I'm sure they have the same agenda. Right now they're just trying to get the people to vote for them. In the end, Kerry will do the same thing Bush is doing now.

Originally posted by piboy
The problem I have with this list of flip-flops is that it is full of commentary of what Bush said he was going to do, and then commentary on what he ended up doing. It would be much more persuasive if there were actual quotes from him that conflicted or flip-flopped, or if he was quoted as saying one thing, but voted another.

Anyone whose followed this administration extensively knows its solid. Like I mentioned to ilovepizza, do a google search and test it out. Search for transcripts of Bush's debates with Algore. That would be a good start.

Here's a link to the 2000 Presidential debates/transcripts...

www.c-span.org...