In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War

I don't see why this is such an issue. You can argue that he gave the president the authority in the spirit of bipartisanship and that now after finding out Dubya lied to Congress to get the authority he feels we never should have gone to war in the first place.

 

Unfortunately the "liberal" media is anything but - if they would report what Kerry actually said instead of attention grabbing headlines like "Kerry would still vote for war", our country wouldn't be as ignorant as it is.

Kerry stated he would have voted for the Resolution - aka, the "authority" - that was in Congress, which allowed for us to move forward to remove terrorists and terrorist cells if the UN wasn't willing to go forward with the pressure on Iraq.

Kerry never said in his speech, "I would've gone to war" - no, he said that the President has the authority to make that decision, and must always have that authority.

But, I guess our media is too liberal to point this out.

Anyway, it just shows how afraid the conservatives are of losing when one has to rely on attacking the other candidate instead of showing what they've accomplished as current President for 4 years.

-m.

 

On the topic of Kerry flip-flops, I think Bill Maher has really got a good funny take on it. For anyone who's watched the first two episodes of this season of his show on HBO, you'll remember how any time at which a Bush supporter has suggested that the President changed his mind, Maher asks them quickly if that's a "flip-flop" :mrgreen:

In my mind, a good leader changes his mind. I think people are allowed to flip-flop over the course of 30 years, and certainly even in the course of a week. If new information surfaces, or even if you've simply reevaluated the picture, changing is good.

And anyway, had I been able to vote in 2000, I would have voted for Bush. Why? Well he was promising to lower taxes but also correspondingly cut back the government some, so as to keep surpluses. Good. He also rallied strongly against interventionism, as many of you certainly remember. I would say that was practically his biggest plank.

Whooops, looks like he flip-flopped.

Now I'm voting for Badnarik in 2004 :mrgreen:

 

Yes, John, you know you can count on me - I can never shy from political debate

I can see how it'd come across as the pot calling the kettle black. However, there is a big point that's being missed - I've abhored Bush since before he got into office. I have disliked almost every single policy that he's put into place. He can't form a single solitary sentence on his own to save his life, and he is the voice of evil in this world. Kerry, on the other hand, hasn't been trashed until it was obvious he was the dem choice. So, while we have years of horrid policy and plain idiocy from Bush to argue about, the only thing the right can argue about Kerry is whatever they can 'dig up'.

Is Kerry a so called flip flopper? Yes, every damned politician in this country of ours is. John McCain campaigned for Bush yesterday - if that's not flip flopping, what is? George Bush was in support for states rights and no federal rule on gay marriage in 2000 - now he's pushing for only federal law on the matter - is that flip flopping?

I do believe, however, that Kerry isn't stupid or self-righteous enough to turn a blind eye to the world protests and millions upon millions of Americans unsatisfied with his foriegn policy, like Bush did. Personally, I'd rather have Howard Dean as our candidate - as would the President and Karl Rove - because he's less of a politician than Kerry is, but the fact stands that it's either Kerry or Bush, and I will not stand to live in a country such as it exists today.

-m.

 

pkjohna:

Unfortunately, Kerry isn't that liberal, as should be obvious to any intelligent observer. He was somewhat in the middle of the set of 9 Democratic contenders.

That "#1 most liberal" statistic is basically constructed from a very small sample period - something like 3 months of his several years of office, coinciding with the time he was campaigning for the nomination, and thus not actually present for the majority of votes. When I first heard it, I temporarily warmed to him, as he'd previously always struck me as somewhat to the right of Clinton, but it turned out to be a dodgy number created from a carefully pre-selected set of data to get a desired answer.

And besides, if he's the "#1 liberal", how can he be a "flip-flopper"? Those are two mutual incompatible descriptions. But hey, if you're allowed to just make things up when calling the opposition names, a little inconsistency can be excused. :roll:

 

John,

The reason the dems won't promote Kerry as liberal (whether he is or isn't) is because it's become a dirty word. Most democrats today (with a few exceptions of course) can hardly be named so. A good deal of this is because of republicans and right-wing media consistently bashing anything deemed "liberal" in the past 15 years - but the real reason this has happened? Because the dems let it happen to themselves without fighting back. Clinton was fairly liberal with his policies, and all the democrats of the time watched him get torn to shreds because he held onto his beliefs and policies, right or wrong. Today though, it's more important for them to be seen as voting for security at home with the Patriot Act than to be seen as a liberal. And because of this, all too many democrat voters are upset. The Democratic party has become so centrist that it's only a matter of time before it merges with the Republican party and some group like the Green Party becomes the "new dems". Just my 2 cents.

-m.

 

I doubt the Green Party would fit that centrist theme Now, if the centrist elephants and donkeys want to split off and form a new "Centrist" party, I'd have a party I would most likely vote with. I suspect it would be the largest of the 3. As it stands, I am beholden to no party and (sorry to offend anyone) feel that people who vote along party lines simply because a candidate belongs to a party, aren't doing their "job" as voters very well.

 

I think what <rflagg> meant was that the Green Party would fill the role on the left of the spectrum that the Democrats vacated by moving to the center.

 

Oh, right. DOH <slaps head>

 

Oh, I'm sure Kerry may be fairly liberal. But I don't believe for one second he's the "#1 liberal" by any fair count.

I always find it rather bizarre that abortion and gun control are viewed as such hot topics in the US. In most of the rest of the "civilised" Western world, we've long since come down as pro-abortion and pro-gun control, (and anti-death penalty and pro-state funded healthcare), and there's no longer any real debate. The US is still somewhat backwards in these areas. Presumably it's because it's such a young country, and still has something of a frontier, wild-west mentality.

On the other hand, you and Canada do seem to be pulling ahead of many other countries on gay rights.

I'd expect any Democrat worth their salt to be scoring "100% liberal" on gun-control/abortion. They're pretty much a given, so are only of use for calibrating the most right-wing Democrats, who won't be getting 100%.

To get any ranking for those claimed to be further left you'll have to pay more attention to the broader and less partisan issues, like healthcare, taxes, the military etc.

 

Hear hear. Anyone of any party prepared to go against party lines on a matter of conscience earns lots of respect points from me. And any party that doesn't tolerate that (within reason) is not a good party.

Both our Labour party and your Republicans appear to have increased control-freak tendencies in recent years. Many MPs over here get ridiculed for being "Tony's cronies". And the US Republicans seem to be getting far more partisan, even to the extent of attempts by right-wingers to unseat moderate Republican incumbents. :|

 

Like KMO, I completely agree with you here, except I have one caveat: While I'll gladly applaud the candidates on both sides who have the courage to buck party policy, I die a little inside each time one of those candidates who seem to vote their conscious decide to fall in party ranks for looks.

A good example of this is McCain campaigning for Bush yesterday. Because of his beliefs and convictions, I would gladly vote for McCain for president. His policies might not best support my own personal desires, but the most important thing is he is honest and seemingly doesn't play games with the 'dirty' side of politics. That being said, I'd rather hear him have said a polite 'no' to Bush for campaigning with him and going to the convention. I'm fine with him going on the record and saying he thinks Bush is a better choice than Kerry, I'm fine with him sticking with his party in that aspect - but to campaign for him when you know for a fact that Bush is a dirty political player, it just saddens me. Kind of like Colin Powell not saying to his superiors during the escalation to the war, "You know what, this goes against my beliefs, and I think it's a wrong move, and you can go ahead and do what you want, but I won't have part of this". Instead he pushed forth things even he didn't believe, and to everyone, it just makes him look sad.

These of course are just the most recent examples in my mind - I'm sure there have been plenty of democrats who have done the same, and it's just as disheartening.

-m.

 

I know you've already been hammered on this, but I just couldn't resist. Do you have any idea whether this statement is true? How was it calculated? What were the criteria? What was the time frame studied? Who did this study? What's their political alignment?

I'll bet that you can't answer a single one of those questions. Yet you're more than willing to parrot a catchy talking point that you heard on some cable news show.

Try the fake news for some real answers: http://priuschat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?...3685&highlight=

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?r...celeb_9012.html

Don't feel bad. Apparently Congressmen also don't have any idea where the "facts" that they quote come from.

 

I used to think the same until I saw him yesterday. Now he's just a whore for Bush. I've lost all respect for him.