Kerry, still just a politician

He says what the public wants to hear and he does what the public wants him to do. Come on, when the war was favorable to the majority he was for it, when it isn't hes not. What kind of guy is this? Hes just another lackey to the American public. Unlike George Bush, he didn't give a crap about protesters against the war. He didn't give a crap about the UN. He does what he feels is right. Now i will admit that he did lie about a few things to get his way, but who cares? He saw that one day the middle east is going to come bite us in the ass and he bit first. Wouldnt you rather have someone that does what it takes to get things done or someone that just sweet talks you and is just going to be another nameless president, just another name thats hard to remember by people taking a citizenship exam?

Wait a minute, I thought a politician was supposed to do what the public wants.
Isn't that what you want? Someone that listens to his constituents(sp) and does what the people who elected him want him to do.
Isn't it "By the people and for the people"

Is this some kind of a trick question, because what you said sounds really stupid.
If you want a dictator try another country. This country is fighting it's dictator and you are saying thats wrong?
Everybody complains that politicians dont listen to the public and when one might be you are giving him a hard time.
You are rallying behind the politician that doesnt listen to the public. That doesnt make sense .

A politician supposed to do what thepublic wants. Very interesting point.

A politician should run on his beliefs, his moral foundation and his core concepts.

The public then votes him in, and they should know full well what he is. Then, no matter how the fickle winds of public opinion blow, he should stay the course.

Flipping and flopping is not the sign of a leader, but of a highschool dingbat.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A politician supposed to do what thepublic wants. Very interesting point.

A politician should run on his beliefs, his moral foundation and his core concepts.

The public then votes him in, and they should know full well what he is. Then, no matter how the fickle winds of public opinion blow, he should stay the course.

Flipping and flopping is not the sign of a leader, but of a highschool dingbat.

Flipping and flopping? You think Bush never did? And all of the issues the neo-cons quote, are half-truths. He was for it then, he wasn't. Bills have admendments, and pork, if you are not familar with both terms, then you should not comment on flip-flopping. Moral foundation and beliefs? I'm not a christian, so I do not think policies should be based on that belief. Stay the course, right or wrong? A man admits when he is wrong. I would assume that whomever Kerry chooses as vice-president wouldn't have worked for Haliburton.

Originally posted by curme
Flipping and flopping? You think Bush never did? And all of the issues the neo-cons quote, are half-truths. He was for it then, he wasn't. Bills have admendments, and pork, if you are not familar with both terms, then you should not comment on flip-flopping. Moral foundation and beliefs? I'm not a christian, so I do not think policies should be based on that belief. Stay the course, right or wrong? A man admits when he is wrong. I would assume that whomever Kerry chooses as vice-president wouldn't have worked for Haliburton.

Actually, when it comes to Dubya and his way of handling things, he is one Politician that I wouldn't acuse of 'Flip Flopping'. His approach is almost the direct opposite in that 'Flip Flopping' is an attempt to 'Communicate an Acceptable Response that Other People will also find in their best Interest'. Which is why the flip flopping happens actually, because as People's Opinions tend to change, so must the Responses that are being given.

Bush on the other hand, Does in fact stand by what he says. To the point that he sometimes comes across as a Stubborn, Arrogant, Tyrant who refuses to recognize his own errors. He doesn't admit to even the slightest error in judgement or incorrect choice of action, regardless of amount of evidence which shows the opposite.

If drilled for an explaination or some answers toward the possibility of a mistake in his judgement, he will simply keep answering as if no such possibility or evidence of a bad dissision has ever been found or considered, and that to imply that he has somehow made an error is just crazy. Most of the time just completely rolling over the entire subject as if he heard some completely different set of questions.

His method is like catching someone red handed doing something, like your g/f leaving some guys house at like 6am after she didn't come home from the club the night before. You know she hooked up with the guy but she continues to deny it. No matter how much evidence you throw in front of her, continuous denial persists. Because you didn't actually see them physically in bed together, but possibly have proof of every other moment before and after, she just sticks to her story, and the result is you never get the full closure like you would to their confession. Even though you know the answer, it's still not the same as them admitting that your right or that you caught them.

I'd say that is more like the Bush method. 'Deny everything, Admit Nothing, & Stick to the Original Story'. As long as you do that, there is no need to Flip Flop, because according to your perspective, there is no problem or anything that requires further investigation. Everything is going on just perfect and just as planned. People love to hear that too. Even if it requires total denial of reality slapping them in the face. They will ignore truth and deny the existence of their own suffering as long as somebody They Want to Believe tells them Everything is just fine.