Flip-Flop - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 09-28-2004, 04:22 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml

Quote:

(CBS) The charge of "flip-flopping" has resounded throughout the presidential race, with the Bush campaign repeatedly accusing Sen. John Kerry of changing his mind on the issues. The Kerry campaign, in turn, has declared that Mr. Bush is the one doing the flip-flopping.

CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn looks at the record and finds both men are correct. Here, the president's most notable flip-flops. Tomorrow, John Kerry's.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”

Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks

In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”

In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”

The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

The Sept. 11 Commission

President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, “Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.”

Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.

Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.

Homeland Security Department

President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.

Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.

Same-Sex Marriage

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.

Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.

Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.

Winning the War on Terror

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said of the war on terror in August. In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he said, “I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Before the month closed, Mr. Bush reversed himself at the American Legion national convention in Nashville. He said: "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." He later added, “we are winning, and we will win."

Campaign Finance Reform

President Bush was initially against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He opposed any soft-money limits on individuals to national parties.

But Mr. Bush later signed McCain-Feingold into law. The law, named for Senate sponsors John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., barred both national parties from collecting soft money from individuals.

During the 2000 race, Mr. Bush showed support for the so-called 527 groups’ right to air advertising.

In March 2000, he told CBS News' "Face the Nation," "There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about.”

In late August of this year, in an effort to distance himself from controversial anti-Kerry ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush reversed his position, announcing he would join McCain in legal action to stop these "shadowy" organizations.

Though it would close the Swift Boat group's funding, court action would also silence well-funded liberal 527 organizations like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.

Gas Prices

Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.

A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.

Can we please stop using this word now? Both canidates have changed their mind. In fact i'd go as far as to say that to be a good polition you should be open to changing your mind. I'd hate to have people in charge who would stick to their guns no matter how wrong they were.

Ustwo · 09-28-2004, 04:34 PM

www.kerryoniraq.com

Direct link.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

Enjoy.

TheKak · 09-28-2004, 04:48 PM

I agree with you Rekna. This argument is just plain stupid, as both sides have done the whole flip flop thing. Either side calling out the other on flip flopping is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Face it, they both suck.

Rekna · 09-28-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

www.kerryoniraq.com

Direct link.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

Enjoy.

I believe the rules of the board state that you need to include your own thoughts when you post links.

Ustwo · 09-28-2004, 05:43 PM

My thoughts are I think you should look at it.

Rekna · 09-28-2004, 05:48 PM

i watched it for about 5 minutes. It didn't really say anything but a whole lot of nothing. As expected it was a bunch of partisian bs.

JumpinJesus · 09-28-2004, 06:15 PM

The real issue here, I think, is not whether Bush or Kerry can be called flip-floppers, but that Bush has effectively used this moniker to label Kerry, who has been ineffective in shaking it.

All intelligent people change their minds, and their positions, on some issues, at some time. The problem is when this is made out to be a deficit of personality.

Bush's campaign would make the Mad Hatter envious.

cthulu23 · 09-28-2004, 06:53 PM

We've only got five more weeks to go before we don't have to hear the term "flip-flop" for at least 3 years! Is everyone else as excited as I am?

It is only being repetitive to state that any sane leader will amend their thinking to reflect the changing world, and George Bush has been no different, "flip-flopping" *shudders* on many different issues. Good god, can't we put this behind us?

ARTelevision · 09-28-2004, 07:35 PM

It has been quite effective in this campaign - so it must have some resonance with the electorate.

cthulu23 · 09-28-2004, 07:42 PM

As in all things political, sometimes the truth is superfluous. Over 40% of that same electorate still believes that there were Iraqis amongst the 9-11 hijackers.

Rekna · 09-28-2004, 07:43 PM

Who needs truth when lies work so much better?

powerclown · 09-28-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

(Go directly to 2:49 mark, do not pass go, do not collect $200.)

He sounds as hawkish as Rumsfeld. Fascinating link.

Boo · 09-28-2004, 07:58 PM

Hmmm, A political campaign that could be won because team#1 had a catchy phrase. Thats all I have to say.

OpieCunningham · 09-28-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

It has been quite effective in this campaign - so it must have some resonance with the electorate.

It has had resonance with the media - so it must have been effective in the campaign.

The electorate doesn't have awareness enough to have resonance.

pedro padilla · 09-28-2004, 08:19 PM

that is the essence of politics. Every single one of these professional bullshitters go with whatever fabrication they deem most suited for the occasion. But in trying to make some sense out of all the vebal diarrhea, i have come to the conclusion that sometimes you really do have to change your original opinion. When it´s obvious that you are on the wrong road the intelligent choice is to admit your mistakes and change direction. The most foolish thing you can do is stubbornly carry on against all common sense and refuse to take advice from the many, many people that actually understand the depth of the situation.
Flip Flop? Common sense demands admitting your errors. I also see GW as far more guilty in the yes no yes no, say whatever you think they wanna hear department. He really will say anything to sleaze his way past the american people.
It´s very sad that it continues to work effectively. Can´t dazzle em with brilliance? Baffle em with bullshit.

Ustwo · 09-28-2004, 08:21 PM

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...070013feee.txt

Quote:

Howard Dean supporters give John Kerry flip-flops as Christmas gift

DES MOINES -- Howard Dean supporters gave John Kerry a peculiar Christmas gift -- flip-flop sandals.

Iowans for Dean delivered the "present" to the Massachusetts senator's Iowa campaign headquarters on Wednesday. Both Dean and Kerry are among nine candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Sen. Kerry has been flip-flopping on issues throughout his career and campaign, and we thought we could make things a little more comfortable for him," said Dean spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.

Kerry has flip-flopped on issues including the war in Iraq, Social Security, intelligence resources and taxes, Leonard said in a news release.

A telephone message left for Kerry spokesman John Norris Wednesday night was not immediately returned.

Damn these Dean people! How dare they question the judgement of a man like Kerry with something as childish as the line 'flip flop'.

Oh wait...

cthulu23 · 09-28-2004, 08:45 PM

Do we really need to post another side-by-side comparison of Kerry vs. Bush "flip-flopping?" As anyone not completely enamored with party rhetoric has noticed, the charge can easily be made both ways. Still, if an individual is willing to knowingly shop around false statements and ridiculous, out of context quotes, then obviously truth is no barrier.

Superbelt · 09-29-2004, 03:48 AM

Why bother? He'll just ignore it, like he has many times before, and post Flipper and flip-flop in the next thread that appears to be ready for the attack.

onetime2 · 09-29-2004, 04:02 AM

The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up.

Kerry's failure to have clearly laid out and cohesive positions soon after it was obvious that he was going to be "the" Democratic candidate is political stupidity. Most people can't answer the question "Where does Kerry stand on _____" because he has not effectively defined and communicated his positions. It takes a long time for stuff to sink into the public's heads and he did not make the most of the time he had available.

It's this lack of focus and clarity that makes the flip-flop charge effective. Additionally, like the first Bush Presidency when faced with the attack on the economy from Clinton, his campaign has been very slow in challenging the perception being pushed by his opponents.

Kadath · 09-29-2004, 04:34 AM

"The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up."

Most of the 'flip flops' found in Bush lists occurred during his candidacy or early Presidency. That's where Kerry is now -- in his candidacy. Doesn't that make the two exactly the same in this regard?

onetime2 · 09-29-2004, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

"The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up."

Most of the 'flip flops' found in Bush lists occurred during his candidacy or early Presidency. That's where Kerry is now -- in his candidacy. Doesn't that make the two exactly the same in this regard?

I don't think so because the undecided voters have been picking their candidate over the last month or two and will continue to do it up until election day. Without a base of understanding for Kerry's positions and a real familiarity with him, people will naturally tend toward the "known" person. Whether they fully agree or disagree with Bush they have a pretty good read on where he stands on a lot of things. Kerry hasn't created that kind of perception. Many of us on the board here have a pretty good idea of his beliefs but we follow politics much more closely than the average person.

I'm not saying the difference is in what they do just when they do it and the importance of the timing. You can't have a large mass of people unclear on what you stand for this close to election. The 9+ field of candidates for the nomination already had people confused and gave the air of disorganization. Whichever candidate was to win that ugly race for the nomination they had to come out with clear stands. Dean was probably best prepared for that since he was relatively consistent in his beliefs. Those beliefs had to be reinforced throughout the race not just towards the end of it.

ARTelevision · 09-29-2004, 05:55 AM

A general comment regarding posting habits here.

It's time to cut out the underhanded jibes and personal attacks that are directed at particular posters. Veiling your explicit statements within extended phrases does not mask the facts regarding what you are doing. Your meanings and intended targets are clear. Everyone is aware of the tactic and it is what it is - personal atttack. The tone of the posters in question must improve. Now.

Superbelt · 09-29-2004, 06:32 AM

I wouldn't say, at least what I am doing, is a personal attack. So if you weren't pinpointing me, forget I posted this. I am making very valid points about the state of this community over the past month. Having a discussion about changing positions by candidates is all well and good. We can have that. But there comes a point where it is just spam.

The discussion started, and 'we' trotted out clear information about Bush doing the exact same thing. I just spent the past hour reading over every thread in the politics board with the word flip in it. Only onetime has addressed this point whatsoever that I can see. The way things ARE is, The flip-flop charge is brought out, Kerry is mocked. We then provide the context for the perceived flip. Context for issues Such as the "for the $87 Billion before I was against it", are so obvious that you need only a minute to understand where he is coming from. Kerry's statement is ambiguous, as a soundbite, but once you understand the background it becomes clear.
Or, we bring massive lists of how Bush has done the so called 'flip-flop'. Such as the campaign promise of no nation building, then we build a nation. He promised to leave the SS surplus alone, now it is distributed in his tax cuts.
We can bring this up time and again and it is ignored. Some choose to remain on a soapbox with their fingers in their ears and continue to shout it. At this point the flip-flop issue has ceased to become a discussion and remains only two sides yelling at each other. That's not what this board is for. "It's nyah-nyah your daddy's a poopyhead, I can't hear you!"

How will this community respond if myself and several other posters who have been trying to fight back and explain away this bull start a new line? We could make 60% of the next thousand posts in this particular board about how Bush accepts large donations from special interests. Because of that he is no longer a man for the people and only a puppet for his funders. Ooh some could point out that Kerry has received large donations from special interests too, many times both Bush and Kerry both received the same amount from the same interest. We then ignore that, let the thread die and pick up in the next thread. Ad nauseum. How will the face of TFP_Politics look to the conservatives and Bush supporters then?

In conclusion, they are not personal attacks as much as they are our attempts to start a true dialogue and us expressing our displeasure at the constant dodge. Then again, I was for this post before I was against it.
/Choke

onetime2 · 09-29-2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

How will this community respond if myself and several other posters who have been trying to fight back and explain away this bull start a new line? We could make 60% of the next thousand posts in this particular board about how Bush accepts large donations from special interests. Because of that he is no longer a man for the people and only a puppet for his funders. Ooh some could point out that Kerry has received large donations from special interests too, many times both Bush and Kerry both received the same amount from the same interest. We then ignore that, let the thread die and pick up in the next thread. Ad nauseum. How will the face of TFP_Politics look to the conservatives and Bush supporters then?

In conclusion, they are not personal attacks as much as they are our attempts to start a true dialogue and us expressing our displeasure at the constant dodge. Then again, I was for this post before I was against it.
/Choke

I think these thoughts are probably how many on the "right" here in politics already see the board. There are probably twice as many anti Bush threads as anti Kerry threads (at least that's my perception I'd love to know a break down but am kind of lazy today and don't want to attempt to figure it out).

The number of lies and flat out misrepresentations about Bush in this campaign are staggering. The number done to Kerry is miniscule in comparison. Perhaps that's a factor of how many potential Democratic candidates there were in the field with all of them trying to make their mark by criticizing their opponents (both Bush and the other Dems). Part of it is certainly the deep seated anger that many on the "left" feel towards Bush. I am in no way defending the misrepresentations about Kerry but have a tough time feeling sympathy or being motivated to shout them down when the campaign to oust Bush has been using these tactics since Bush was elected.

FWIW, I think it would be great if all sides in TFP would acknowledge that "their" side does some stupid and untruthful things. Rather than only pointing to the "other" side as an example, how about criticizing both for the actions they take that we disagree with?

I think the Vietnam issue is a perfect example. You have the Republicans claiming that Kerry didn't earn his medals despite having gone through the proper military channels. And you have the Democrats claiming that Bush didn't complete his Guard duties despite having gone through the proper military channels. Their defense of their candidates is exactly the same "They went through the proper military channels, so you should accept it." Instead of recognizing the faulty logic being applied by both sides everyone argues endlessly about the details of each.

ARTelevision · 09-29-2004, 07:13 AM

My post above is a warning. There will be consequences if the tactics I addressed continue.

Superbelt · 09-29-2004, 07:15 AM

I'd say it is true that there are more negative points being floated out there about Bush. (I won't even touch on which ones I personally believe to be true or not). But I am seeing a quality over quantity. Beyond the TANG, The things against Bush are if not half hearted, not followed up on. All of them, TANG, Flip-Flop and Swiftvets thing. All disgusting and has no place. They need to stop. All of them. Those are the ones I see as widespread (Add others to the list if you think I forgot some). Hell, even Al Michaels and John Madden had to make a flip-flop crack on the last preseason Monday Night Football game.

You are right. I want vietnam criticisms to just go away. I don't care if Bush was Awol or if Kerry didn't earn his medals. That was over thirty years ago and has no bearing on where they take this nation today. This election is about two things. It is a referrendum on the Bush administration, simply by the fact that he is the incumbent. So what should be analyzed is both mens past four years of record. And I want to know where both want to take this nation. That's it. Everything else is an attempt to distract from what really matters.

I may be blinded to it. So, please list for me what you think are the uncalled for issues and criticisms that my side is leveling at Bush. I want to know.
Let us all make lists, then maybe we can start a new thread and discuss which ones really need to be tossed out because they are wrong, or irrelevant to the Presidential Election, and which ones need further discussing.

For Kerry
Swift Vets
Flip Flop
Anyone else is free to add to my short list here of criticisms that peeve them.

roachboy · 09-29-2004, 07:41 AM

for myself, i look at this "flipflop" idiocy as indicative of how rove-adverts operate: like shampoo--lather rinse repeat.
they stick because they are short and they are repeated.
they stick because they provide the illusion of movement--here is an "issue"--repeat claims about the "issue" for a while, move on to the next element.

what i cant figure out about it is:

let us assume that a politician has to deal with a complex shifting environment, one that more often than not slips outside of a previous frame of reference and which therefore requires some effort to interpret.

you would think that being able to shift along with that would be indicative of thinking, wouldnt you?

so how does it work, this claim that adjustments, reversals, reconsiderations are indicative of weakness?

what seems to be happening is that the adverts, the slogan, package the refusal to interact with complexity as a good thing.

which is insane.

underneath this is a more troubling question of what exact attributes people would prefer to see in a president?
are people looking for a kind of father-figure, someone to whom they can attribute omniscience?
how would this not be adopting an infant's view of a parental figure?

this relation is more authoritarian than democratic.

j.g. ballard's argued in his book "the atrocity exhibition" that america has become a kind of super-monarchy mediated by television in which the image of the president (not the actually existing president) is central.

does this attribution of omniscience to the image of the president function best when the signifier is emptiest? are folk more drawn to this fantasy when they know it is a fantasy?

it sometimes seems that the bush people have not only worked this out, but are more than fine with it.
they use it to their advantage.
they embrace it.
you want to be dominated?
well here you go...

lather rinse repeat

Ustwo · 09-29-2004, 07:44 AM

I will be happy to drop all the Vietnam issue stuff, and focus on Kerrys record.

On the other hand the 'flip-flop' is a vaild point. The man has no center, no consistant policy, other then being for all forms of abortion.

irateplatypus · 09-29-2004, 07:45 AM

the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in. the attacks aren't being made from mainstream democrats (though i'm less and less sure what that means these days) and/or other figures with political authority. most of america recognizes that the source of these attacks as someone they do not identifiy with... the attacks slide off Bush like bacon off a non-stick pan.

poorly conceived Bush attacks no one cares about
Bush lied. - people are too in-tune with the war in iraq's developments to fall for this.
AWOL - reflecting what people want to believe, not the documented truth.
Bush is a flip-flopper too! - even if it were true, it's coming way to late in the game not to sound like a weak and juvenile response. (especially after spending the last 3 years lamenting cowboy bush and his arrogance of never changing his mind and not listening to others.)

seriously, if you were undecided or leaning slightly to either side would this sway your vote? doubt it. many attacks on bush are fueled by the hate these people harbor. they convince no one but people like themselves who wouldn't vote for bush anyway. it's not an effective political statement, it's masturbation.

roachboy · 09-29-2004, 08:26 AM

and here is another move that i do not understand: how disagreement with the bush administration can be attributed to "hate"--i do not see the linkage--it seems a right discourse tick designed to trivialize opposition....
where did this term come from, anyway, the "bush haters"?
and why is it either interesting or compelling?

powerclown · 09-29-2004, 08:30 AM

The essence of all politicians is to modify their public statements to suit the wants and needs of their picky constituencies.

With Kerry, he just chose the wrong place and time to do this.

Superbelt · 09-29-2004, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

poorly conceived Bush attacks no one cares about
Bush lied. - people are too in-tune with the war in iraq's developments to fall for this.
AWOL - reflecting what people want to believe, not the documented truth.
Bush is a flip-flopper too! - even if it were true, it's coming way to late in the game not to sound like a weak and juvenile response. (especially after spending the last 3 years lamenting cowboy bush and his arrogance of never changing his mind and not listening to others.)

Trade Vietnam Medal Flap for AWOL Flip-Flop for Bush flip-flop (Surprise! the only reason we bring it up is because Kerry Flip-Flops are brought up. That's why it came so late in the game. And as weak and juvenile Bush Flip-flops sound that is magnified on our side from the conservatives.)
Bush lied. I'll trade that one for the Kerry Botox retardedness.

Kadath · 09-29-2004, 08:44 AM

"the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in."

If that were true, no attack on a politician would ever stick. Attacks on political figures are rarely five page essays enumerating the numerous mistakes a man or woman has made. It's always "John Kerry -- Soft on defense." "George Bush -- Wrong for the middle class." etc.

"Bush lied. I'll trade that one for the Kerry Botox retardedness."

Don't forget the tanning bed stuff.

Stompy · 09-29-2004, 08:48 AM

I made a thread about a month ago which pretty much proved that both sides flip flop equally, and that those who focus on "Kerry flipflopping" pretty much have no real concept of what's actually going on.

irateplatypus · 09-29-2004, 09:11 AM

sorry stompy, but that list you posted in that thread was full of inconsistencies. it really didn't prove anything but the author's partisanship.

i'm not sure i would draw such parallel lines from one sides attacks to the others. they seem to have varying amounts of relevance and cogency. i agree that kerry tanning or botox attacks are really very silly. but, i think their equivalents on the left side of the aisle are the "bush is a cowboy" kind of comments and not the ones listed above. both (botox and cowboy) may be true, but i really don't care about either.

this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves.

Kadath · 09-29-2004, 10:04 AM

"this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves."

Or perhaps it tells you about the person deciding if the attacks stick or not. In all seriousness, I propose that it might be a case of "the more shit you throw, the more sticks."

cthulu23 · 09-29-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves.

Of course, the assertion that only attacks against Kerry "stick" is unproven and is certainly a subjective observation. Perhaps your own prejudices are coloring your judgement as to how effective each sides attacks are.

irateplatypus · 09-29-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

Or perhaps it tells you about the person deciding if the attacks stick or not. In all seriousness, I propose that it might be a case of "the more shit you throw, the more sticks."

oh come on now. you're proposing that the mud throwing is weighted heavily to one side? surely you don't believe that. venom towards GWB has never been in short supply, i'd be surpised if someone could argue otherwise. i think the main difference is that the republicans are throwing their "shit" at kerry while the democrats are crapping more out... but just prefer to bath in it.

cthulu,

superbelt and i rarely agree but we seem to share similar perceptions on this point. this gives me hope that i will be redeemed from my oppresive prejudices.

but, if superbelt and i can't convince you... there are some polls that might sway your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbelt

I'd say it is true that there are more negative points being floated out there about Bush. (I won't even touch on which ones I personally believe to be true or not). But I am seeing a quality over quantity.

cthulu23 · 09-29-2004, 10:27 AM

We all have prejudices...don't mistake the use of the word as an insult.

All the polls that I've seen (aside from Gallup, which is oversampling Republicans) show a very close race. This assumes you are talking about polls dealing with the presidential horse race and not some other aspect of the campaigns.

irateplatypus · 09-29-2004, 10:44 AM

lol, my feelings aren't hurt.

yeah, i would agree with you that such a tight race wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful about the effect of the ads in the general electoral polls.

however, i have seen a couple polls on cnn that said that since the swiftvote ads have been present kerry's rating as a war hero and an effective commander in chief has dropped significantly. forgive me, i cannot find the source at the moment... but it was a double point drop in public perception. now i don't pretend to be able to quantify the effect the drop of perception has directly into the general electoral statistics. still, you would be hard pressed to say that it hasn't had at least some effect.

09-28-2004, 04:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	www.kerryoniraq.com Direct link. http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv Enjoy. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-28-2004, 04:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	I agree with you Rekna. This argument is just plain stupid, as both sides have done the whole flip flop thing. Either side calling out the other on flip flopping is like the pot calling the kettle black. Face it, they both suck. __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

09-28-2004, 05:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My thoughts are I think you should look at it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-28-2004, 06:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	The real issue here, I think, is not whether Bush or Kerry can be called flip-floppers, but that Bush has effectively used this moniker to label Kerry, who has been ineffective in shaking it. All intelligent people change their minds, and their positions, on some issues, at some time. The problem is when this is made out to be a deficit of personality. Bush's campaign would make the Mad Hatter envious. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

09-28-2004, 06:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	We've only got five more weeks to go before we don't have to hear the term "flip-flop" for at least 3 years! Is everyone else as excited as I am? It is only being repetitive to state that any sane leader will amend their thinking to reflect the changing world, and George Bush has been no different, "flip-flopping" shudders on many different issues. Good god, can't we put this behind us? Last edited by cthulu23; 09-28-2004 at 07:57 PM..

09-28-2004, 05:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	i watched it for about 5 minutes. It didn't really say anything but a whole lot of nothing. As expected it was a bunch of partisian bs.

09-28-2004, 07:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It has been quite effective in this campaign - so it must have some resonance with the electorate. __________________ create evolution

09-28-2004, 07:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	As in all things political, sometimes the truth is superfluous. Over 40% of that same electorate still believes that there were Iraqis amongst the 9-11 hijackers.

09-28-2004, 07:43 PM	#11 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Who needs truth when lies work so much better?

09-28-2004, 07:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	Hmmm, A political campaign that could be won because team#1 had a catchy phrase. Thats all I have to say. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

09-28-2004, 08:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	that is the essence of politics. Every single one of these professional bullshitters go with whatever fabrication they deem most suited for the occasion. But in trying to make some sense out of all the vebal diarrhea, i have come to the conclusion that sometimes you really do have to change your original opinion. When it´s obvious that you are on the wrong road the intelligent choice is to admit your mistakes and change direction. The most foolish thing you can do is stubbornly carry on against all common sense and refuse to take advice from the many, many people that actually understand the depth of the situation. Flip Flop? Common sense demands admitting your errors. I also see GW as far more guilty in the yes no yes no, say whatever you think they wanna hear department. He really will say anything to sleaze his way past the american people. It´s very sad that it continues to work effectively. Can´t dazzle em with brilliance? Baffle em with bullshit.

09-28-2004, 08:45 PM	#17 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Do we really need to post another side-by-side comparison of Kerry vs. Bush "flip-flopping?" As anyone not completely enamored with party rhetoric has noticed, the charge can easily be made both ways. Still, if an individual is willing to knowingly shop around false statements and ridiculous, out of context quotes, then obviously truth is no barrier.

09-29-2004, 03:48 AM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Why bother? He'll just ignore it, like he has many times before, and post Flipper and flip-flop in the next thread that appears to be ready for the attack.

09-29-2004, 04:02 AM	#19 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up. Kerry's failure to have clearly laid out and cohesive positions soon after it was obvious that he was going to be "the" Democratic candidate is political stupidity. Most people can't answer the question "Where does Kerry stand on _____" because he has not effectively defined and communicated his positions. It takes a long time for stuff to sink into the public's heads and he did not make the most of the time he had available. It's this lack of focus and clarity that makes the flip-flop charge effective. Additionally, like the first Bush Presidency when faced with the attack on the economy from Clinton, his campaign has been very slow in challenging the perception being pushed by his opponents. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-29-2004, 04:34 AM	#20 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	"The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up." Most of the 'flip flops' found in Bush lists occurred during his candidacy or early Presidency. That's where Kerry is now -- in his candidacy. Doesn't that make the two exactly the same in this regard? __________________ it's quiet in here

09-29-2004, 05:55 AM	#22 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	A general comment regarding posting habits here. It's time to cut out the underhanded jibes and personal attacks that are directed at particular posters. Veiling your explicit statements within extended phrases does not mask the facts regarding what you are doing. Your meanings and intended targets are clear. Everyone is aware of the tactic and it is what it is - personal atttack. The tone of the posters in question must improve. Now. __________________ create evolution

09-29-2004, 06:32 AM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I wouldn't say, at least what I am doing, is a personal attack. So if you weren't pinpointing me, forget I posted this. I am making very valid points about the state of this community over the past month. Having a discussion about changing positions by candidates is all well and good. We can have that. But there comes a point where it is just spam. The discussion started, and 'we' trotted out clear information about Bush doing the exact same thing. I just spent the past hour reading over every thread in the politics board with the word flip in it. Only onetime has addressed this point whatsoever that I can see. The way things ARE is, The flip-flop charge is brought out, Kerry is mocked. We then provide the context for the perceived flip. Context for issues Such as the "for the $87 Billion before I was against it", are so obvious that you need only a minute to understand where he is coming from. Kerry's statement is ambiguous, as a soundbite, but once you understand the background it becomes clear. Or, we bring massive lists of how Bush has done the so called 'flip-flop'. Such as the campaign promise of no nation building, then we build a nation. He promised to leave the SS surplus alone, now it is distributed in his tax cuts. We can bring this up time and again and it is ignored. Some choose to remain on a soapbox with their fingers in their ears and continue to shout it. At this point the flip-flop issue has ceased to become a discussion and remains only two sides yelling at each other. That's not what this board is for. "It's nyah-nyah your daddy's a poopyhead, I can't hear you!" How will this community respond if myself and several other posters who have been trying to fight back and explain away this bull start a new line? We could make 60% of the next thousand posts in this particular board about how Bush accepts large donations from special interests. Because of that he is no longer a man for the people and only a puppet for his funders. Ooh some could point out that Kerry has received large donations from special interests too, many times both Bush and Kerry both received the same amount from the same interest. We then ignore that, let the thread die and pick up in the next thread. Ad nauseum. How will the face of TFP_Politics look to the conservatives and Bush supporters then? In conclusion, they are not personal attacks as much as they are our attempts to start a true dialogue and us expressing our displeasure at the constant dodge. Then again, I was for this post before I was against it. /Choke

09-29-2004, 07:13 AM	#25 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	My post above is a warning. There will be consequences if the tactics I addressed continue. __________________ create evolution

09-29-2004, 07:15 AM	#26 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'd say it is true that there are more negative points being floated out there about Bush. (I won't even touch on which ones I personally believe to be true or not). But I am seeing a quality over quantity. Beyond the TANG, The things against Bush are if not half hearted, not followed up on. All of them, TANG, Flip-Flop and Swiftvets thing. All disgusting and has no place. They need to stop. All of them. Those are the ones I see as widespread (Add others to the list if you think I forgot some). Hell, even Al Michaels and John Madden had to make a flip-flop crack on the last preseason Monday Night Football game. You are right. I want vietnam criticisms to just go away. I don't care if Bush was Awol or if Kerry didn't earn his medals. That was over thirty years ago and has no bearing on where they take this nation today. This election is about two things. It is a referrendum on the Bush administration, simply by the fact that he is the incumbent. So what should be analyzed is both mens past four years of record. And I want to know where both want to take this nation. That's it. Everything else is an attempt to distract from what really matters. I may be blinded to it. So, please list for me what you think are the uncalled for issues and criticisms that my side is leveling at Bush. I want to know. Let us all make lists, then maybe we can start a new thread and discuss which ones really need to be tossed out because they are wrong, or irrelevant to the Presidential Election, and which ones need further discussing. For Kerry Swift Vets Flip Flop Anyone else is free to add to my short list here of criticisms that peeve them.

09-29-2004, 07:41 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	for myself, i look at this "flipflop" idiocy as indicative of how rove-adverts operate: like shampoo--lather rinse repeat. they stick because they are short and they are repeated. they stick because they provide the illusion of movement--here is an "issue"--repeat claims about the "issue" for a while, move on to the next element. what i cant figure out about it is: let us assume that a politician has to deal with a complex shifting environment, one that more often than not slips outside of a previous frame of reference and which therefore requires some effort to interpret. you would think that being able to shift along with that would be indicative of thinking, wouldnt you? so how does it work, this claim that adjustments, reversals, reconsiderations are indicative of weakness? what seems to be happening is that the adverts, the slogan, package the refusal to interact with complexity as a good thing. which is insane. underneath this is a more troubling question of what exact attributes people would prefer to see in a president? are people looking for a kind of father-figure, someone to whom they can attribute omniscience? how would this not be adopting an infant's view of a parental figure? this relation is more authoritarian than democratic. j.g. ballard's argued in his book "the atrocity exhibition" that america has become a kind of super-monarchy mediated by television in which the image of the president (not the actually existing president) is central. does this attribution of omniscience to the image of the president function best when the signifier is emptiest? are folk more drawn to this fantasy when they know it is a fantasy? it sometimes seems that the bush people have not only worked this out, but are more than fine with it. they use it to their advantage. they embrace it. you want to be dominated? well here you go... lather rinse repeat __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2004, 07:44 AM	#28 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I will be happy to drop all the Vietnam issue stuff, and focus on Kerrys record. On the other hand the 'flip-flop' is a vaild point. The man has no center, no consistant policy, other then being for all forms of abortion. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-29-2004, 07:45 AM	#29 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in. the attacks aren't being made from mainstream democrats (though i'm less and less sure what that means these days) and/or other figures with political authority. most of america recognizes that the source of these attacks as someone they do not identifiy with... the attacks slide off Bush like bacon off a non-stick pan. poorly conceived Bush attacks no one cares about Bush lied. - people are too in-tune with the war in iraq's developments to fall for this. AWOL - reflecting what people want to believe, not the documented truth. Bush is a flip-flopper too! - even if it were true, it's coming way to late in the game not to sound like a weak and juvenile response. (especially after spending the last 3 years lamenting cowboy bush and his arrogance of never changing his mind and not listening to others.) seriously, if you were undecided or leaning slightly to either side would this sway your vote? doubt it. many attacks on bush are fueled by the hate these people harbor. they convince no one but people like themselves who wouldn't vote for bush anyway. it's not an effective political statement, it's masturbation. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-29-2004 at 07:48 AM..

09-29-2004, 08:26 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and here is another move that i do not understand: how disagreement with the bush administration can be attributed to "hate"--i do not see the linkage--it seems a right discourse tick designed to trivialize opposition.... where did this term come from, anyway, the "bush haters"? and why is it either interesting or compelling? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2004, 08:30 AM	#31 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	The essence of all politicians is to modify their public statements to suit the wants and needs of their picky constituencies. With Kerry, he just chose the wrong place and time to do this.

09-29-2004, 08:44 AM	#33 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	"the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in." If that were true, no attack on a politician would ever stick. Attacks on political figures are rarely five page essays enumerating the numerous mistakes a man or woman has made. It's always "John Kerry -- Soft on defense." "George Bush -- Wrong for the middle class." etc. "Bush lied. I'll trade that one for the Kerry Botox retardedness." Don't forget the tanning bed stuff. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 09-29-2004 at 08:47 AM..

09-29-2004, 08:48 AM	#34 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I made a thread about a month ago which pretty much proved that both sides flip flop equally, and that those who focus on "Kerry flipflopping" pretty much have no real concept of what's actually going on. __________________ I love lamp.

09-29-2004, 09:11 AM	#35 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	sorry stompy, but that list you posted in that thread was full of inconsistencies. it really didn't prove anything but the author's partisanship. i'm not sure i would draw such parallel lines from one sides attacks to the others. they seem to have varying amounts of relevance and cogency. i agree that kerry tanning or botox attacks are really very silly. but, i think their equivalents on the left side of the aisle are the "bush is a cowboy" kind of comments and not the ones listed above. both (botox and cowboy) may be true, but i really don't care about either. this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-29-2004, 10:04 AM	#36 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	"this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves." Or perhaps it tells you about the person deciding if the attacks stick or not. In all seriousness, I propose that it might be a case of "the more shit you throw, the more sticks." __________________ it's quiet in here

09-29-2004, 10:27 AM	#39 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	We all have prejudices...don't mistake the use of the word as an insult. All the polls that I've seen (aside from Gallup, which is oversampling Republicans) show a very close race. This assumes you are talking about polls dealing with the presidential horse race and not some other aspect of the campaigns.

09-29-2004, 10:44 AM	#40 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	lol, my feelings aren't hurt. yeah, i would agree with you that such a tight race wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful about the effect of the ads in the general electoral polls. however, i have seen a couple polls on cnn that said that since the swiftvote ads have been present kerry's rating as a war hero and an effective commander in chief has dropped significantly. forgive me, i cannot find the source at the moment... but it was a double point drop in public perception. now i don't pretend to be able to quantify the effect the drop of perception has directly into the general electoral statistics. still, you would be hard pressed to say that it hasn't had at least some effect. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill