NationStates Jolt Archive

Electoral vote wise I mean. How are you tracking it, and what states will this election be fought in?

Electoral vote wise I mean. How are you tracking it, and what states will this election be fought in?

Here is a good link for you.

How can Kerry win? I am sure there are many ways, the election is far off.

Essentially all Kerry would have to do is win all the state Gore did and then take one of Bush's bigger wins, like Florida or Ohio. Of course, all Bush would have to do is hang on to what he had.

Well, the DNC could do the same thing to Bush that the Republicans did to Paul Wellstone...

tell the cubans to make a list and promise them everything on it, and give them one of his daughters as a hostage until they are implemented. dems win the cuban vote big, they win florida.

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates

If the two parties can agree on a format and location.

It's not looking too promising right now.

Kerry can't win unless Bush totally screws up. Kerry has nothing to promise, it isn't how much better Kerry is (as he isn't), but people see him as a better alternative. I don't like either canidate, but Bush DOES have some aspects I prefer highly over Kerry.

/wish we could have a real conservative.

I hate how people think Bush is a right-wing nutcase. He isn't even right wing, he's more moderate, its crazy. He's larger government, that's enough to say right there he isn't conservative.

Bush-Bashing and Kerry-Killing not withstanding, as of right now:

Total votes: 538 Votes needed to win: 270
Bush Solid:187
Kerry Solid:147
Up for grabs: 204

...of course, things can change over 5 weeks.
They're predicting Bush 296 to Kerry 238 at this point. I'm sure there are other sites with different ranges.

Keep watching at:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Four More Years

Kerry can't win unless Bush totally screws up.

Then Kerry's already won

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates
Debate with whom? John Kerry? He has taken both sides of allmost every major issue out there except 1 (gutting the military)

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates

Don't get your hopes up, fan boy.

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates

Well, maybe. It depends on the format. If it's a set format with little ad-lib, Kerry won't have room to do much. If somehow a free-form debate occurs, then there is a chance that Kerry can win.

Kerry can't win unless Bush totally screws up. Kerry has nothing to promise, it isn't how much better Kerry is (as he isn't), but people see him as a better alternative. I don't like either canidate, but Bush DOES have some aspects I prefer highly over Kerry.

/wish we could have a real conservative.

I hate how people think Bush is a right-wing nutcase. He isn't even right wing, he's more moderate, its crazy. He's larger government, that's enough to say right there he isn't conservative.
one word..."neocon"... i'm not even sure its actually a word in the technical sense...

Electorally, Kerry has a hard task in front of him. His campaign is foundering. Bush leads in the polls in the key battleground states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Florida. The polls in Pennsylvania are in a dead-heat. Kerry only has a discernible lead in Michigan, which Bush lost in 2000 anyway. Bush will win Florida because he will (as he should) steer a lot of FEMA and other disaster aid to areas rocked by hurricanes.

The issues polls show Bush leading big on terrorism, Iraq and character issues (more honest, stands by his principles, etc.), tied in fitness for CinC and the economy. The only way Kerry can gain ground is to convince most voters that health care is a bigger issue, and I don't see that happening.

I know it's still early, but things aren't looking good for Kerry.

that of course isn't true, but you have learned the simplest of the republican talking points.
Oh dear God you don't think that Kerry is not switching sides on every point? I realized this back in February/March before Republicans even said anything about it. You obviously have NOT looked at his voting record, he's more liberal than Dukakis was in the 80's.

Debate with whom? John Kerry? He has taken both sides of allmost every major issue out there except 1 (gutting the military)

that of course isn't true, but you have learned the simplest of the republican talking points.

The only way Kerry can gain ground is to convince most voters that health care is a bigger issue, and I don't see that happening.

I know it's still early, but things aren't looking good for Kerry.

Healthcare shouldn't even be a government issue. The reason healthcare is ungodly in prices is because the government got involved in the first place. National healthcare flops. Look at Canada, I see Democrats wanting Canadian type health care systems. I have three friends in Canada, all of whom think their healthcare system suck because people DIE waiting a YEAR in line for an operation, while one of them's grandparents are actually in that predicament now.

Well, maybe. It depends on the format. If it's a set format with little ad-lib, Kerry won't have room to do much. If somehow a free-form debate occurs, then there is a chance that Kerry can win.

Bush surprised a lot of people in the debates in 2000. Gore was supposed to totally kick his ass (after all, Bush is stupid, right?) but Bush clearly won 2 of the 3 debates in the viewers' eyes, according to polls taken at the time.

Healthcare shouldn't even be a government issue. The reason healthcare is ungodly in prices is because the government got involved in the first place. National healthcare flops. Look at Canada, I see Democrats wanting Canadian type health care systems. I have three friends in Canada, all of whom think their healthcare system suck because people DIE waiting a YEAR in line for an operation, while one of them's grandparents are actually in that predicament now.

I tend to agree with your views on government involvement in healthcare, but I'm speaking strictly from a campaign standpoint, on how Kerry could win votes. I don't see healthcare as that important to the American electorate. And the polls show that.

well if he's super liberal then he must have a consistantly liberal voting record. if he really votes both sides of every issue(except gutting the military) he must have in the end a moderate centrist record. you can't have it both ways.
Your problem is that you don't have a clue what he is talking about.

Kerry is the most liberal voter in the entire senate. However, on nearly every issue he will say he is liberal and then the next week (no exaggeration) say he is conservative on the EXACT SAME ISSUE.

To top it off, he isn't being taken out of context and has no excuse.

"I VOTED FOR THE MILITARY RECORD BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST IT LOLOLOL"

Debate with whom? John Kerry? He has taken both sides of allmost every major issue out there except 1 (gutting the military)
Yea...that or the way he feels on the issues is more complex than a simple "yes" or "no" answer...I bet if your grilled me on some issues I'd come off as a flip flopper like Kerry because I'm not an extremist in either direction.

Oh dear God you don't think that Kerry is not switching sides on every point? I realized this back in February/March before Republicans even said anything about it. You obviously have NOT looked at his voting record, he's more liberal than Dukakis was in the 80's.

well if he's super liberal then he must have a consistantly liberal voting record. if he really votes both sides of every issue(except gutting the military) he must have in the end a moderate centrist record. you can't have it both ways.

well if he's super liberal then he must have a consistantly liberal voting record. if he really votes both sides of every issue(except gutting the military) he must have in the end a moderate centrist record. you can't have it both ways.

I think Lancerlot is separating Kerry's "stand" on issues on the campaign trail from his Senate voting record. On the campaign trail, Kerry will say anything he thinks the audience wants to hear. But when it comes time to actually vote on something (when Kerry shows up for his job, which is not often) he consistently votes with the most liberal Democratic Senators.

I think the Senate's most liberal voters side with him, he has the straight up most liberal record.

For anyone who doubts this:
Flip Flopped On Trade With China

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)



Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Kerry Took BOTH Sides On First Gulf War

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

Flip-Flopped On Gay Marriage Amendment

In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter “Urging” MA Legislature To Reject Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. “We rarely comment on issues that are wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court, but there are occasions when matters pending before you are of such significance to all residents of the Commonwealth that we think it appropriate for us to express our opinion. One such matter is the proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit or seriously inhibit any legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex relationships. We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents. … We are therefore united in urging you to reject this Constitutional amendment and avoid stigmatizing so many of our fellow citizens who do not deserve to be treated in such a manner.” (Sen. John Kerry, et al, Letter To Members Of The Massachusetts Legislature, 7/12/02)

Now, In 2004, Kerry Won’t Rule Out Supporting Similar Amendment. “Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn’t rule out the possibility. ‘I’ll have to see what language there is,’ he said.” (Susan Milligan, “Kerry Says GOP May Target Him On ‘Wedge Issue,’” The Boston Globe, 2/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Flip-Flopped On Death Penalty For Terrorists

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As “Mockery.” “Between now and the time I’m sworn in January 2005, I’m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ‘No Child Left Behind.’” (Holly Ramer, “Kerry Wants To Make ‘Environmental Justice’ A Priority,” The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ‘Unfunded Mandate’ With ‘Laudable’ Goals. “Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ‘unfunded mandate’ with ‘laudable’ goals. ‘Without the resources, education reform is a sham,’ Kerry said. ‘I can’t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words “no child left behind.”‘“ (Matt Leon, “Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,” The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Affirmative Action

In 1992, Kerry Called Affirmative Action “Inherently Limited And Divisive.” “[W]hile praising affirmative action as ‘one kind of progress’ that grew out of civil rights court battles, Kerry said the focus on a rights-based agenda has ‘inadvertently driven most of our focus in this country not to the issue of what is happening to the kids who do not get touched by affirmative action, but … toward an inherently limited and divisive program which is called affirmative action.’ That agenda is limited, he said, because it benefits segments of black and minority populations, but not all. And it is divisive because it creates a ‘perception and a reality of reverse discrimination that has actually engendered racism.’” (Lynne Duke, “Senators Seek Serious Dialogue On Race,” The Washington Post, 4/8/92)

In 2004, Kerry Denied Ever Having Called Affirmative Action “Divisive.” CNN’s KELLY WALLACE: “We caught up with the Senator, who said he never called affirmative action divisive, and accused Clark of playing politics.” SEN. KERRY: “That’s not what I said. I said there are people who believe that. And I said mend it, don’t end it. He’s trying to change what I said, but you can go read the quote. I said very clearly I have always voted for it. I’ve always supported it. I’ve never, ever condemned it. I did what Jim Clyburn did and what Bill Clinton did, which is mend it. And Jim Clyburn wouldn’t be supporting it if it were otherwise. So let’s not have any politics here. Let’s keep the truth.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/30/04)

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

Flip-Flopped On Cuba Sanctions

Senator Kerry Has Long Voted Against Stronger Cuba Sanctions. (H.R. 927, CQ Vote #489, Motion Rejected 59-36: R 50-2; D 9-34, 10/17/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 955, CQ Vote #183: Rejected 38-61: R 5-49; D 33-12, 7/17/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1234, CQ Vote #189, Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 43-10; D 12-33, 6/30/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 59-41: R 52-3; D 7-38, 6/20/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2000, Kerry Said Florida Politics Is Only Reason Cuba Sanctions Still In Place. “Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview that a reevaluation of relations with Cuba was ‘way overdue.’ ‘We have a frozen, stalemated, counterproductive policy that is not in humanitarian interests nor in our larger credibility interest in the region,’ Kerry said. … ‘It speaks volumes about the problems in the current American electoral process. … The only reason we don’t reevaluate the policy is the politics of Florida.’” (John Donnelly, “Policy Review Likely On Cuba,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/00)

Now Kerry Panders To Cuban Vote, Saying He Would Not Lift Embargo Against Cuba. TIM RUSSERT: “Would you consider lifting sanctions, lifting the embargo against Cuba?” SEN. KERRY: “Not unilaterally, not now, no.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Kerry Does Not Support “Opening Up The Embargo Wily Nilly.” “Kerry said he believes in ‘engagement’ with the communist island nation but that does not mean, ‘Open up the dialogue.’ He believes it ‘means travel and perhaps even remittances or cultural exchanges’ but he does not support ‘opening up the embargo wily nilly.’” (Daniel A. Ricker, “Kerry Says Bush Did Not Build A ‘Legitimate Coalition’ In Iraq,” The Miami Herald, 11/25/03)

Flip-Flopped On NAFTA

Kerry Voted For NAFTA. (H.R. 3450, CQ Vote #395: Passed 61-38: R 34-10; D 27-28, 11/20/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Recognized NAFTA Is Our Future. “‘NAFTA recognizes the reality of today’s economy - globalization and technology,’ Kerry said. ‘Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.’” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Senate’s OK Finalizes NAFTA Pact,” The Boston Globe, 11/21/93)

Now, Kerry Expresses Doubt About NAFTA. “Kerry, who voted for NAFTA in 1993, expressed some doubt about the strength of free-trade agreements. ‘If it were before me today, I would vote against it because it doesn’t have environmental or labor standards in it,’ he said.” (David Lightman, “Democrats Battle For Labor’s Backing,” Hartford Courant, 8/6/03)

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it’s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. “Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ‘This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,’ he said.” (“Kerry Says Time Is On Dems’ Side,” The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn

September 2001: Said Should Not Raise Taxes In Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . .[Y]ou don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)


We Should “Absolutely Not Raise Taxes.” “Well, I think it’s very clear what I favor because we voted for it early in the spring, which was the Democratic budget alternative that had triggers in it where you didn’t wind up spending money you don’t have. It had a smaller tax cut but more tax cut for a stimulus, which is what we need. So you ask me, what do we need now? Yes, we need additional stimulus. We should absolutely not raise taxes. We should not cut spending. What we need to do is drive the economy of this country. The economy is the number one issue. It is the most important thing we should focus on.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 9/8/01)


April 2002: Said He Wanted Larger Tax Cut And Was “Not In Favor Of” Repeal. CNN’s TUCKER CARLSON: “Senator Kerry . . . [many Democrats] [g]et a lot of political mileage out of criticizing [President Bush’s tax cut], but nobody has the courage to say repeal it. Are you for repealing it?” KERRY: “It’s not a question of courage. . . . And it’s not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year … [T]he next tax cut doesn’t take effect until 2004. If we can grow the economy enough between now and then, if we have sensible policies in place and make good choices, who knows what our choices will be. So it’s simply not a ripe issue right now. And I’m not in favor of turning around today and repealing it.” (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 4/16/02)

December 2002: Flip-Flopped, Would Keep Tax Cuts From Taking Effect. NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut … What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts.” … RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years …” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” … RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)


Called For Freeze Of Bush Tax Cuts In Favor Of Year-Long Suspension Of Payroll Taxes On First $10,000 Of Personal Income. “Kerry said Bush’s tax cuts have mainly benefited the rich while doing little for the economy. Kerry is proposing to halt Bush’s additional tax cuts and instead impose a yearlong suspension of payroll taxes on the first $10,000 of income to help the poor and middle class.” (Tyler Bridges, “Kerry Visits Miami To Start Raising Funds,” The Miami Herald, 12/7/02)


Flip-Flopped On Small Business Income Taxes

Kerry Voted Against Exempting Small Businesses And Family Farms From Clinton Income Tax Increase. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #79: Motion Agreed To 54-45: R 0-43; D 54-2, 3/25/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Three Months Later, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Proposal To Exclude Small Businesses From The Increased Income Tax. (S. 1134, CQ Vote #171: Motion Rejected 56-42: R 43-0; D 13-42, 6/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Claimed He Fought To Exempt Small Businesses From Income Tax Increases. “I worked to amend the reconciliation bill so that it would … exempt small businesses who are classified as subchapter S corporations from the increased individual income tax.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 6/29/93, p. S 8268)

Kerry Flip-Flopped On 50-Cent Gas Tax Increase

In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston Globe, 3/1/94)

Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)

Flip-Flopped On Leaving Abortion Up To States

Kerry Used To Say Abortion Should Be Left Up To States. “I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide,” Kerry said during his failed 1972 Congressional bid. (“John Kerry On The Issues,” The [Lowell, MA] Sun, 10/11/72)

Now Kerry Says Abortion Is Law Of Entire Nation. “The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution.” (Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 1/22/85)

Flip-Flopped On Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees

Kerry Used To Oppose Litmus Tests For Judicial Nominees. “Throughout two centuries, our federal judiciary has been a model institution, one which has insisted on the highest standards of conduct by our public servants and officials, and which has survived with undiminished respect. Today, I fear that this institution is threatened in a way that we have not seen before. … This threat is that of the appointment of a judiciary which is not independent, but narrowly ideological, through the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/86, p. S864)

But Now Kerry Says He Would Only Support Supreme Court Nominees Who Pledge To Uphold Roe v. Wade. “The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. … ‘Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Vows Court Picks To Be Abortion-Rights Supporters,” The Boston Globe, 4/9/03)

Flip-Flopped On Federal Health Benefits

In 1993, Kerry Expressed Doubts That Federal Employees Health Benefits System Worked Well. “Hillary Rodham Clinton today offered a fresh description of one of the most confusing elements of the Administration health care plan, the health insurance purchasing alliances, saying they would let all Americans choose coverage in the way members of Congress do. … Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he was not sure that the Federal program worked all that well.” (Adam Clymer, “Hillary Clinton Says Health Plan Will Be Familiar,” The New York Times, 12/8/93)

Kerry Expressed Personal Dissatisfaction With His Coverage Through Federal Program. “Earlier this month, when Hillary Rodham Clinton came to Boston and vowed that average Americans would get as good coverage as that enjoyed by their senators and representatives, Sen. John F. Kerry told Clinton that he thought the country could do better. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was thinking, among other recent disasters, of his $500 dental bill for treatment of an abscessed tooth. ‘Because it was done in the dentist’s office, rather than the hospital, they didn’t cover it. So they were urging me to go spend twice as much in a hospital,’ said Kerry, who is covered by BACE, the Beneficial Association of Capitol Employees.” (Ana Puga, “Lawmakers Talk Health Care,” The Boston Globe, 12/19/93)

Now, On Campaign Trail, Kerry Is Enthusiastic About Health Care He Receives As Senator. “As a U.S. Senator, I could get the best health care in the world. Most people aren’t so lucky, and we need to change that. That’s why my plan gives every American access to the same kind of health care that members of Congress give themselves. … Because your family’s health care is just as important as any politicians’ in Washington.” (Sen. John Kerry, “Affordable Health Care For All Americans,” Remarks At Mercy Medical, Cedar Rapids, IA, 12/14/03)

Kerry: “I’m Going To Make Available To Every American The Same Health Care Plan That Senators And Congressmen Give Themselves …” (Sen. John Kerry, AARP Democrat Candidate Debate, Bedford, NH, 11/18/03)

Flip-Flopped On Tax Credits For Small Business Health

In 2001, Kerry Voted Against Amendment Providing $70 Billion For Tax Credits For Small Business To Purchase Health Insurance. (H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #83: Rejected 49-51: R 48-2; D 1-49, 4/5/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Now, Kerry Promises Refundable Tax Credits To Small Businesses For Health Coverage. “Refundable tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage will be offered to small businesses and their employees to make health care more affordable.” (“John Kerry’s Plan To Make Health Care Affordable To Every American,” John Kerry For President Website, www.johnkerry.com, Accessed 1/21/04)

Flip-Flopped On Health Coverage

In 1994, Kerry Said Democrats Push Health Care Too Much. “[Kerry] said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls.” (Joe Battenfeld, “Jenny Craig Hit With Sex Harassment Complaint - By Men,” Boston Herald, 11/30/94)

But Now Kerry Calls Health Care His “Passion.” “Sen. John Kerry says expanding coverage is ‘my passion.’” (Susan Page, “Health Specifics Could Backfire On Candidates,” USA Today, 6/2/03)

Flip-Flopped On Welfare Reform

In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):


Fiscal 1993 Supplemental Appropriations - Welfare Work Requirement. “Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to table (kill) the D’Amato, R-N.Y., amendment to sharply cut federal welfare administration aid to states that do not, within a year, require at least 10 percent of their able-bodied welfare recipients without dependents to work. The required workfare participation rate would be increased by 2 percent a year until 50 percent were working.” (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)


But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flops On Stock Options Expensing

Kerry Used To Oppose Expensing Stock Options. “Democratic Senator John F. Kerry was among those fighting expensing of stock options.” (Sue Kirchhoff, “Senate Blocks Options,” The Boston Globe, 7/16/02)

Kerry Said Expensing Options Would Not “Benefit The Investing Public.” KERRY: “Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board … has proposed a rule that will require companies to amortize the value of stock options and deduct them off of their earnings statements … I simply cannot see how the FASB rule, as proposed, will benefit the investing public.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 3/10/94, p. S2772)

But Now Kerry Says He Supports Carrying Of Stock Options As Corporate Expense. “On an issue related to corporate scandals, Kerry for the first time endorsed the carrying of stock options as a corporate expense. The use of stock options was abused by some companies and contributed to overly optimistic balance sheets. Kerry applauded steps by Microsoft Corp. to eliminate stock options for employees and said all publicly traded companies should be required to expense such options.” (Dan Balz, “Kerry Raps Bush Policy On Postwar Iraq,” The Washington Post, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Medical Marijuana

Kerry Said His “Personal Disposition Is Open To The Issue Of Medical Marijuana.” “Aaron Houston of the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana said that just a month ago Mr. Kerry seemed to endorse medical marijuana use, and when asked about the content of his mysterious study, said, ‘I am trying to find out. I don’t know.’ Mr. Kerry did say his ‘personal disposition is open to the issue of medical marijuana’ and that he’d stop Drug Enforcement Administration raids on patients using the stuff under California’s medical marijuana law.” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

But Now Kerry Says He Wants To Wait For Study Analyzing Issue Before Making Final Decision. “The Massachusetts Democrat said Wednesday he’d put off any final decision on medical marijuana because there’s ‘a study under way analyzing what the science is.’” (Jennifer Harper, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times, 8/8/03)

Flip-Flopped On Burma Sanctions

In 1995, Kerry Was Against Burma Sanctions. “‘I question whether isolation is a successful means of promoting political change,’ Kerry told a constituent in a 1995 letter justifying his opposition to a Burma sanction bill.” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

But Now Kerry Supports Burma Sanctions. “In his 1996 reelection campaign, Kerry, after Governor William F. Weld took up the cause, was badgered by advisers into shifting his position. But as he eyes a presidential campaign and the Burma sanction movement gains credibility, Kerry … describes the Burma regime as a ‘semi-criminalized dictatorship … which should not be treated with respect by other nations, but should be instead subject to limitations on travel, investment, and access to the most developed nations.’” (Geeta Anand, et al., “Menino Gets Ahead Of Himself, Starts Contemplating Third Term,” The Boston Globe, 5/18/97)

Flip-Flopped On Military Experience As Credential For Public Office

Kerry: Service Should Not Be “Litmus Test” For Leadership. “Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/08/92, p. S17709)

But Now Kerry Constantly “Challenges The Stature Of His Democratic Opponents” Over Their Lack Of Military Service. “And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents -- none of whom, he frequently points out, have ‘worn the uniform of our country’ -- to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security.” (Adam Nagourney, “As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message,” The New York Times, 8/10/03)

Flip-Flopped On PACs

Kerry Used To Decry “Special Interests And Their PAC Money.” “‘I’m frequently told by cynics in Washington that refusing PAC money is naive,’ Kerry told his supporters in 1985. ‘Do you agree that it is “naïve” to turn down special interests and their PAC money?’” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

But Now, Kerry Has Established His Own PAC. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates. … Kerry’s stance on soft money, unregulated donations funneled through political parties, puts him in the position of raising the type of money that he, McCain, and others in the campaign-finance reform movement are trying to eliminate.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A PAC,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)

Flip-Flopped On $10,000 Donation Limit To His PAC

When Kerry Established His PAC In 2001, He Instituted A $10,000 Limit On Donations. “A week after repeating that he has refused to accept donations from political action committees, Senator John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he was forming a committee that would accept PAC money for him to distribute to other Democratic candidates … The statement also declared that the new PAC would voluntarily limit donations of so-called soft money to $10,000 per donor per year and disclose the source and amount of all such donations.” (Glen Johnson, “In A Switch, Kerry Is Launching A Pac,” The Boston Globe, 12/15/01)


One Year Later, Kerry Started Accepting Unlimited Contributions. “Senator John F. Kerry, who broke with personal precedent last year when he established his first political action committee, has changed his fund-raising guidelines again, dropping a $10,000 limit on contributions from individuals, a cap he had touted when establishing the PAC. The Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday he decided to accept unlimited contributions, which has already allowed him to take in ‘soft money’ donations as large as $25,000, because of the unprecedented fund-raising demands confronting him as a leader in the Senate Democratic caucus.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Shifts Fund-Raising Credo For His Own PAC,” The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)

Flip-Flopped On Using Personal Funds In 1996 Race

In 1996, Kerry And Weld Established $500,000 Limit Of Personal Wealth To Be Used In Senate Campaign. “In 1996, Kerry and Weld gave their already noteworthy Senate race added significance by establishing a spending cap. The candidates agreed to spend no more than $6.9 million from July 1 through the election. Weld ended up spending $6.6 million and Kerry $6.3 million. One key element of the agreement limited the candidates to spending $500,000 in personal wealth, a clause Weld favored because Kerry is married to a millionaire, Teresa Heinz.” (Glen Johnson, “In Kerry’s Plan For A Pac, The Resolution Of Opposites,” The Boston Globe, 12/18/01)

Kerry Broke Agreement By Spending $1.2 Million Over Limit. “[P]ost-election reports showed a last-minute infusion of $1.7 million from Kerry’s wife, heiress Teresa Heinz. … [K]erry denied that his campaign violated its agreement. The money had been loaned--not contributed--by his wife, he explained. ‘There was nothing in the agreement that restricted us from taking a loan … and we paid it back in $1,000 and $2,000 chunks.’” (“Global Ecology Lobby Rocked By Defection,” Political Finance, The Newsletter, 1/02)

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

Flip-Flop-Flipped On Ballistic Missile Defense

Kerry Called For Cancellation Of Missile Defense Systems In 1984 And Has Voted Against Funding For Missile Defense At Least 53 Times Between 1985 And 2000. (“John Kerry On The Defense Budget,” Campaign Position Paper, John Kerry For U.S. Senate, 1984; S. 1160, CQ Vote #99: Rejected 21-78: R 2-50; D 19-28, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #100: Rejected 38-57: R 6-45; D 32-12, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting An “ Yea “ Vote, 9/22/87, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #124: Motion Agreed To 66-29: R 38-6; D 28-23, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #125: Motion Agreed To 50-46: R 38-7; D 12-39, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #126: Motion Rejected 47-50: R 38-6; D 9-44, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2355, CQ Vote #128: Motion Rejected 48-50: R 6-39; D 42-11, 5/11/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #136: Motion Agreed To 56-37: R 9-34; D 47-3, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2355, CQ Vote #137: Motion Agreed To 51-43: R 38-5; D 13-38, 5/13/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4264, CQ Vote #251: Motion Rejected 35-58: R 35-9; D 0-49, 7/14/88, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4781, CQ Vote #296: Motion Agreed To 50-44: R 5-39; D 45-5, 8/5/88, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 5504, CQ Vote #228: Adopted 89-4: R 36-4; D 53-0, 9/22/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 936, CQ Vote #171: Rejected 43-56: R 2-53; D 41-3, 7/11/97, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Motion Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Then Claimed To Support Missile Defense. “I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.” (Peace Action Website, “Where Do The Candidates Stand On Foreign Policy?” http://www.peace-action.org/2004/Kerry.html, Accessed 3/10/04)

Now Kerry Campaign Says He Will Defund Missile Defense. FOX NEWS’ MAJOR GARRETT: “Kerry would not say how much all of this would cost. A top military adviser said the Massachusetts Senator would pay for some of it by stopping all funds to deploy a national ballistic missile defense system, one that Kerry doesn’t believe will work.” KERRY ADVISOR RAND BEERS: “He would not go forward at this time because there is not a proof of concept.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/17/03)

Flip-Flopped On 1991 Iraq War Coalition

At The Time, Kerry Questioned Strength Of 1991 Coalition. “I keep hearing from people, ‘Well, the coalition is fragile, it won’t stay together,’ and my response to that is, if the coalition is so fragile, then what are the vital interests and what is it that compels us to risk our young American’s lives if the others aren’t willing to stay the … course of peace? … I voted against the president, I’m convinced we’re doing this the wrong way …” (CBS’ “This Morning,” 1/16/91)

Now Kerry Has Nothing But Praise For 1991 Coalition. SEN. JOHN KERRY: “In my speech on the floor of the Senate I made it clear, you are strongest when you act with other nations. All presidents, historically, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, did a brilliant job of building a legitimate coalition and even got other people to help pay for the war.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/11/04)

Flip-Flopped On View Of War On Terror

Kerry Said War On Terror Is “Basically A Manhunt.” “Kerry was asked about Bush’s weekend appearance on ‘Meet the Press’ when he called himself a ‘war president.’ The senator, who watched the session, remarked: ‘The war on terrorism is a very different war from the way the president is trying to sell it to us. It’s a serious challenge, and it is a war of sorts, but it is not the kind of war they’re trying to market to America.’ Kerry characterized the war on terror as predominantly an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation. ‘It’s basically a manhunt,’ he said. ‘You gotta know who they are, where they are, what they’re planning, and you gotta be able to go get ‘em before they get us.’” (Katherine M. Skiba, “Bush, Kerry Turn Focus To Each Other,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/13/04)

Two Weeks Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped, Saying War On Terror Is More Than “A Manhunt”. “This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At University Of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2/27/04)

Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)

Flip-Flopped On Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve

In February 2000, Kerry Said Release Of Oil From Strategic Petroleum Reserve Would Not Be “Relevant.” “Without being specific, Kerry, a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested the US could retaliate economically in other trade areas. He also said he does not want a release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A release ‘is not relevant. It would take months for the oil to get to the market,’ he said.” (Cathy Landry, “US Energy Chief Warns Of Gasoline Crisis,” Platt’s Oilgram News, 2/17/00)

Now, In March 2004, Kerry Called For Stop In Filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve To Reduce Prices. “Kerry would pressure oil-producing nations to increase production and temporarily suspend filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, according to campaign documents. ... ‘The Bush administration has put the SPR fill program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the US market,’ the campaign documents said. ‘The program needs better management ... Kerry would temporarily suspend filling SPR until oil prices return to normal levels.’” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry To Offer Plan To Reduce Record Gasoline Prices,” Reuters, 3/29/04)

Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation

In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted Nay)

In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Said “We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.” “We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don’t support access taxes. We don’t support content taxes. We don’t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, p. S11902)

Aaaaaaargh!!! :sniper:

Please don't do that, Lancerlot. Everyone hates it when someone posts a book-length cut & paste job.

All Kerry has to do is keep on keeping on. He's already erased most of Bush's miniscule bounce in the polls, and he's ratcheted up the rhetoric over the last couple of days.

Here's the thing. Every election with an incumbent is always a referendum on the incumbent. There's no getting around it. If the public perceives that the icumbent has done a good enough job, he'll win, no matter how dashing the challenger. People--if they're reasonably satisfied--will take the devil they know over the devil they don't. Whenever an incumbent loses, it's because the public believes he hasn't done the job.

So the election hinges on Bush's record as President. No matter how much his campaign tries to shift the focus to Kerry's war record or what kinds of typewriters were available in 1972, the focus always comes back to the question: what kind of job has Bush done as President? And the simple answer is--not much of one. He's made a lot of vague promises, including promises to hike spending beyond current levels while lowering revenues even more, but his track record isn't solid by any description. Lost jobs, high deficits, two wars unwon, unfinished, and with mounting daily casualties--with that record, it'll be a wonder if he carries 10 states.

But as Robert Heinlein said, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Bush could still win this thing, but it would go against every historical precedent for an incumbent with such a poor record of achievement.

Bush surprised a lot of people in the debates in 2000. Gore was supposed to totally kick his ass (after all, Bush is stupid, right?) but Bush clearly won 2 of the 3 debates in the viewers' eyes, according to polls taken at the time.
A lot of Bush's success in debates is a result of him being a beneficiary of low expectations. If he can "hold his ground" in debates without saying something completely stupid, then, in a lot of people's eyes, he's won.

Blah. Things aren't looking that good right now for Kerry. :(

[20:50:03] <Goobergunch> My prediction at this point is Bush 294, Kerry 244. :(

I have Kerry winning all of Gore's states except Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Bush winning all of the states he won in 2000 except for New Hampshire.

First of all, congrats on thinking for yourself, honcho. Second of all, many of those "flip-flops" can be disproven. I will do the first one, mostly because I'm lazy and tired right now.
For anyone who doubts this:
Flip Flopped On Trade With China

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)
Gee, did it ever come across your mind that economies can change within a period of 10 years? China's economy used to be relatively lackluster, and propping it up with such trade measures was beneficial to us. By 2000, it had picked up a lot of steam, and such measures were no longer necessary to prop it up.

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

Do you even know what China is doing with the yuan? They're deliberately keeping the price of the yuan down so that their goods are cheaper for consumers to buy. Economically (for those that aren't avid followers of Milton Friedman, at least), Kerry's foreign trade policies are much more sound than Bush's.

All Kerry has to do is keep on keeping on. He's already erased most of Bush's miniscule bounce in the polls, and he's ratcheted up the rhetoric over the last couple of days.

Here's the thing. Every election with an incumbent is always a referendum on the incumbent. There's no getting around it. If the public perceives that the icumbent has done a good enough job, he'll win, no matter how dashing the challenger. People--if they're reasonably satisfied--will take the devil they know over the devil they don't. Whenever an incumbent loses, it's because the public believes he hasn't done the job.

So the election hinges on Bush's record as President. No matter how much his campaign tries to shift the focus to Kerry's war record or what kinds of typewriters were available in 1972, the focus always comes back to the question: what kind of job has Bush done as President? And the simple answer is--not much of one. He's made a lot of vague promises, including promises to hike spending beyond current levels while lowering revenues even more, but his track record isn't solid by any description. Lost jobs, high deficits, two wars unwon, unfinished, and with mounting daily casualties--with that record, it'll be a wonder if he carries 10 states.

But as Robert Heinlein said, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Bush could still win this thing, but it would go against every historical precedent for an incumbent with such a poor record of achievement.

I disagree with your characterization of what Kerry has to do and the state of Bush's campaign. So do the polls:

"Key Election Issues in the Showdown States
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll Managing Editor

Gallup Polls in four “showdown states” show George W. Bush with a lead among likely voters in Missouri and Ohio, John Kerry with a lead in Washington, and the two candidates essentially tied in Pennsylvania. A closer look at the data reveals that voters’ perceptions of the key issues in those states are strongly related to their votes, and underscores the advantage Bush has over Kerry on the terrorism issue."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13048

President Bush has a 52% job approval rating.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/
I may be mistaken, but I don't think any modern incumbent President has ever lost with an approval rating over 50%.

"The public’s views of George W. Bush and John Kerry are similar, with a majority of Americans rating each candidate favorably."

Question: "Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. How about -- George W. Bush/ John Kerry?"

Bush: 55% favorable-44% unfavorable
Kerry: 53%-43%

±3 pct. pt. margin of error
Sept. 3-5, 2004
Sample size = 1,018
National adults
http://www.gallup.com/

I know this is just one poll, but the trends are similar when all major polls are taken together.

A lot of Bush's success in debates is a result of him being a beneficiary of low expectations. If he can "hold his ground" in debates without saying something completely stupid, then, in a lot of people's eyes, he's won.


debates also are often won or lost in popular opinion of personal style. an area where bush is actually quite strong and gore and possibly kerry are rather weak. i actually am not sure a debate is anything resembling a bad thing for bush, as long as he is well prepped and stays on message. kerry needs to work on his personal presence if he wants to beat bush in the debates. its more reality tv show voting than scholarly discourse.

debates also are often won or lost in popular opinion of personal style. an area where bush is actually quite strong and gore and possibly kerry are rather weak. i actually am not sure a debate is anything resembling a bad thing for bush, as long as he is well prepped and stays on message. kerry needs to work on his personal presence if he wants to beat bush in the debates. its more reality tv show voting than scholarly discourse.

Hey, we actually agree on something! :D

Blah. Things aren't looking that good right now for Kerry. :(

[20:50:03] <Goobergunch> My prediction at this point is Bush 294, Kerry 244. :(

I have Kerry winning all of Gore's states except Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Bush winning all of the states he won in 2000 except for New Hampshire.
unfornunately i agree with you in the broad outlines. my take on the election is 2 to 1 or 5 to 3 in favor of bush on a betting line, and i can't stand the man.

*snipped*

Ahem, this wasn't posted here


John Kerry, flip-flopper?
Mar 25th 2004
From The Economist print edition



One accusation that ought not to stick

THE Bush campaign has begun a 90-day media blitz to define John Kerry as a serial waffler, bet-hedger and panderer. They are having a whale of a time. On the Republican National Committee's website, you can play an interactive boxing match: Kerry v Kerry. Click a glove. Pow! He's for gay marriage (the site gives details of his position). Click again. Zap! He's against gay marriage (contradictory details). And so on for 30 rounds, each an example of Mr Kerry supposedly on both sides of every issue.

The assault is having an effect, or was before Richard Clarke's book embarrassed the president. Mr Kerry has lost both his poll lead and the aura of triumph from his party's primaries. In that sense, the campaign against him is already working. But is it true? Is Mr Kerry really incoherent and expedient? And if he is, what does that tell you about the sort of president he might be?

Start by conceding that a certain amount of flip-flopping is inevitable in “the art of the possible”. For example, what would you call someone who opposed setting up a Department of Homeland Security one minute and espoused the idea the next? Or who claimed to be a staunch free trader—right up to the moment he imposed illegal tariffs on imported steel? You'd call him George Bush.

Sometimes, flip-flopping is even desirable. Mr Bush was transformed by the attacks of September 11th 2001 from a cold war great-power nationalist to the democratiser of the Arab world (though with little to show for it so far). Some of America's most successful presidents—Franklin Roosevelt and Eisenhower, for instance—were accused of having no fixed moorings and of endless tactical flexibility.

So the proper question is not, has Mr Kerry changed his mind? It is, has he done it so often that he is just a weather-vane? And the answer must be no. True, there is a long list of issues on which he has changed his tune. But many of these fall into one of two categories where changes of mind ought to be regarded as commendable or at least understandable.

The first category embraces issues on which he changed for the better. In 1988, Mr Kerry voted against a proposal requiring welfare recipients to work a few hours a week. In 1996, he voted in favour of a welfare reform imposing far stricter work requirements. This was inconsistent. It was also justified. The 1996 welfare reform was one of the great successes of the Clinton presidency. Similarly, Mr Kerry used to oppose the idea of expensing stock options, arguing that to do so would hurt high-tech start-ups. But after the stockmarket bust, and as evidence grew that unexpensed options caused market distortions, he altered his line. As John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

The second and larger category consists of Senate votes that look contradictory taken out of context, but make sense once the context is added. Many Senate bills exist in similar drafts, and the final version frequently includes obnoxious provisions that have nothing to do with the substance of the bill itself. Senators then face an unenviable choice. Do they back the bill, with the extra provision they would otherwise have opposed? Or do they vote against a bill they support? No wonder no sitting senator has won the presidency since Kennedy. With 19 years of such nuanced votes to account for, Mr Kerry is especially vulnerable.

His idiotic statement about the $87 billion Iraqi reconstruction package—that he voted for it before he voted against it—reflects such problems: it accurately describes how he voted on different versions of the bill. He also endorsed ending the double taxation of dividends as part of a wider tax reform, but voted against it as part of a tax cut. Inconsistent, but understandable.

Such problems are awkward for all senators. In Mr Kerry's case, they are compounded by a tension between the needs of representing liberal Massachusetts and his own, sometimes more hawkish, views on matters such as national security and welfare reform.

Resolve v realism

Of course, not all his flip-flops can be explained away. To different audiences, he has supported and criticised Israel's security fence. He voted for the Iraq war resolution, criticised the manner in which Mr Bush went to war, and refused to say whether he thinks the action was, on balance, justified. He has abandoned some brave stances against Democratic dogma—such as supporting Social Security reform or earlier challenges to restrictive practices by teachers' unions.

So his record contains inconsistencies. But these are individual failures. They do not add up to any fundamental incoherence of political philosophy. In that sense, the main charge against Mr Kerry is false.

To the Bush team, that is irrelevant. They are not concerned about the substance of Mr Kerry's views. Indeed, when they do turn to substance later this year, they will almost certainly criticise him not for inconsistency, but for the opposite: for being consistently liberal. The attack on “flip-flopping” is really about image: a vacillating Mr Kerry highlights the president's image as a man of immovable resolve at a time of national danger.

Yet, almost inadvertently, this debate over image and inconsistency tells you something profound about the candidates. When Mr Bush reverses himself (in abandoning his promise to run a “humble” foreign policy, for instance) he does so boldly, almost spectacularly. There is no attempt to explain the shift. One set of principles succeeds another, as if the earlier views never existed. Mr Kerry's reversals, on the other hand, are products of subtly shifting nuance as he tries, and fails, to strike a balance between competing views. The one approach shows resolution, and a tendency to exaggeration; the other, a tendency to waffle, but also a grasp of how complicated political realities can be.




When in Rome...

I think Kerry might win, but there are people who think Kerry is an idiot and voting for Bush. To be honest all Kerry says in his comercials is he blew up asians in Nam and got 3 purple hearts. But he was on the Daily Show and what he said made sence.

I think Nader's party might get more votes then usual.

Bush's bounce is still around, last time I looked on CNN today it was 51-42.

Bush's bounce is still around, last time I looked on CNN today it was 51-42.
I saw it closer to 52-44, but yes the bounce is still there.

Bush's bounce is still around, last time I looked on CNN today it was 51-42.
CNNs poll is misweighted...

CNNs poll is misweighted...
How so? I mean, I'd rather bush be lacking in any support at all, but these numbers seem fairly consistent with other polls also being conducted.

Healthcare shouldn't even be a government issue. The reason healthcare is ungodly in prices is because the government got involved in the first place. National healthcare flops. Look at Canada, I see Democrats wanting Canadian type health care systems. I have three friends in Canada, all of whom think their healthcare system suck because people DIE waiting a YEAR in line for an operation, while one of them's grandparents are actually in that predicament now.

Hear, Hear!! Glad to hear someone else say this.

I've been saying this for years and people just look at me stupid. As if it's a new concept.

How so? I mean, I'd rather bush be lacking in any support at all, but these numbers seem fairly consistent with other polls also being conducted.
Well, first, CNN hasn't released a poll in quite a bit, so I assume that he is talking about the Time/Newsweek polls, and as for that...

Go to the following site, which has the full 20 page report:

http://www.srbi.com/condensed-data-2004-5.pdf

and go to page 19. And there you see STUNNING EVIDENCE that the survey methodology is weighted towards finding GOP leaning Democrats and Independents. It asks respondents who they voted for in 2000. BUSH 53% GORE 41%
Gee, that's not how the vote came out four years ago, did it?

In fact, if you adjust the numbers for this huge bias, Bush is actually TRAILING his performance of 2000, leading by 11% among an population that voted for him by 12% last year. That would seem to indicate a dead heat, or a slight Kerry lead.

And when you factor in all the polls--I posted the latest from Polling Report on another thread earlier today--it averages out to about a two to three point lead. One poll has them tied at 47%. When the Time and Newsweek polls came out right after the convention claiming a double digit lead for Bush, I knew something wasn't right, so I waited and the first true post-convention poll, started after the end of the convention, gave Bush a 2 point bounce. That was Zogby. Rasmussen confirmed it, as did SUSA and a number of other polling outfits. Time's methodology has been wacky for weeks now, and so have their polling results.

CNNs poll is misweighted...

Gallup Poll:
GEORGE W. BUSH 52
JOHN KERRY 45
Sept. 3-5, 2004
Based on Likely Voters

Time Magazine poll:
"For the first time since the presidential contest became a two-man race this spring, it seems to have a clear leader: President Bush. The latest TIME poll shows Bush leading his rival, John Kerry, 52% to 41%."
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040913-692866,00.html

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Bush: 47%
Kerry: 45%
"Some of Bush’s post-convention bump comes from an increase in support among men (up six points), veterans (up six points), and independents (up four points).
Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search) conducted the national poll of 1,000 likely voters for FOX News on September 7-8. "Likely voters" are defined as respondents who are considered more likely to vote in the November presidential election."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131912,00.html

Are they all "misweighted"?

It seem that there are some people who are just listneing to the Republican talking points. Kerry's voting record over his senate carreer is slightly left of center. The sample htat was used to prove that was the few issues that he voted on while on the campaign trail he missed a lot of votes. Being that liberal doesn't change anything for me.
Bush changes on many issues too. It just is nto a talking point. Then there are the ouright distortions. Cheany is the man who gutted the military in the late 80's and early 90's. Even as the gulf war was underway people were being forced out of the military. Then he goes out and blames the Clinton administration for something he himself did. There are many instances like that.

how can kerry win? by making a stand on some topics. he's been really wishy-washy in the past. he needs to get his act together, otherwise we'll be stuck with ol' GW for another 4.

Gallup Poll:
GEORGE W. BUSH 52
JOHN KERRY 45
Sept. 3-5, 2004
Based on Likely Voters

Time Magazine poll:
"For the first time since the presidential contest became a two-man race this spring, it seems to have a clear leader: President Bush. The latest TIME poll shows Bush leading his rival, John Kerry, 52% to 41%."
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040913-692866,00.html

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Bush: 47%
Kerry: 45%
"Some of Bush’s post-convention bump comes from an increase in support among men (up six points), veterans (up six points), and independents (up four points).
Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search) conducted the national poll of 1,000 likely voters for FOX News on September 7-8. "Likely voters" are defined as respondents who are considered more likely to vote in the November presidential election."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131912,00.html

Are they all "misweighted"?Look at the differences in when tey were conducted. If that's the Time poll I'm thinking about, it was conducted during the convention. The Gallup poll started the day after the convention ended and had a smaller lead, and the Fox News poll started the week after the convention lead and had the smallest lead of the ones you posted. See a pattern emerging? I'm not denying that Bush has a lead; I'm just saying that Time and Newsweek have exaggerated that lead in their polls with bad methodology, and that the farther away we get from Bush's convention, the smaller his lead gets. His bounce--what there was of it--is largely gone.

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates

Exactly, that is where it will be won or lost.

Aaaaaaargh!!! :sniper:

Please don't do that, Lancerlot. Everyone hates it when someone posts a book-length cut & paste job.

I agree. Please don't do that. On the other hand, there are so many things that Kerry flip flops on. The length of the post is amazing.:mad:

I really despise many of the things that he President has done. The TSA, John Ashcroft, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft. :eek:

But at the very least, he is acting in a way to defend our Republic. :sniper: Unlike the many hits and hundreds of people that were killed during the Clinton Administration by radical Muslim terrorists. He didn't do a thing. And I am certain that Kerry wouldn't do anything either. :mad:

Look at the differences in when tey were conducted. If that's the Time poll I'm thinking about, it was conducted during the convention. The Gallup poll started the day after the convention ended and had a smaller lead, and the Fox News poll started the week after the convention lead and had the smallest lead of the ones you posted. See a pattern emerging? I'm not denying that Bush has a lead; I'm just saying that Time and Newsweek have exaggerated that lead in their polls with bad methodology, and that the farther away we get from Bush's convention, the smaller his lead gets. His bounce--what there was of it--is largely gone.

Yes, I know these are a little outdated. On the other hand, they are nation-wide, head-to-head polls. The battleground states are where the race will be won or lost, electorally. And the Gallup polls I noted above for those states were just posted today.

But at the very least, he is acting in a way to defend our Republic. :sniper: Unlike the many hits and hundreds of people that were killed during the Clinton Administration by radical Muslim terrorists. He didn't do a thing. And I am certain that Kerry wouldn't do anything either. :mad:Clinton didn't do a thing? I get so fucking tired of hearing that. I guess the prosecution of the 1993 WTC bombers is nothing. And the multiple bombings and missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps were nothing. And the foiling of the 2000 Millenium bombing attack was nothing. And putting forth the greatest amount of resources ever toward the elimination of al Qaeda was nothing as well. :rolleyes:

That was all nothing in comparison to ignoring intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks, talking tough but pulling resources away from the fight with al Qaeda, involving us in a war that has trapped our military and turned more people against us, right? Nothing? Right.

Debate with whom? John Kerry? He has taken both sides of allmost every major issue out there except 1 (gutting the military)

He voted not to increase military spending once, in 1991 (Cheney voted with him). At the time when we needed a huge army less than ever. Now since we actually have a use for them, he wants 40 000 more soldiers.

I agree. Please don't do that. On the other hand, there are so many things that Kerry flip flops on. The length of the post is amazing.:mad:

I really despise many of the things that he President has done. The TSA, John Ashcroft, The Patriot Act, John Ashcroft. :eek:

But at the very least, he is acting in a way to defend our Republic. :sniper: Unlike the many hits and hundreds of people that were killed during the Clinton Administration by radical Muslim terrorists. He didn't do a thing. And I am certain that Kerry wouldn't do anything either. :mad:

Bush had ten times as many killed, and did no more to stop it happening again. Hell, Clinton was the one who ordered Saddams' WMDs destroyed. That's why they haven't found any.

[QUOTE=Lancerlot
I hate how people think Bush is a right-wing nutcase. He isn't even right wing, he's more moderate, its crazy. He's larger government, that's enough to say right there he isn't conservative.[/QUOTE]

Bush isn't a conservative in the old school way, you're right. He's a NEO-conservative, which is why I have such a big problem with him. He's fiscally irresponsible.
The way in which Bush IS far right is in his eagerness to cram his social agenda down the throat of everyone in the country. I didn't support Bush in 2000, but he at least talked a good game, about being a uniter and not a divider, but, unfortunately, he's been about as divisive as they come.

Gallup Poll:
GEORGE W. BUSH 52
JOHN KERRY 45
Sept. 3-5, 2004
Based on Likely Voters

Time Magazine poll:
"For the first time since the presidential contest became a two-man race this spring, it seems to have a clear leader: President Bush. The latest TIME poll shows Bush leading his rival, John Kerry, 52% to 41%."
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040913-692866,00.html

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Bush: 47%
Kerry: 45%
"Some of Bush’s post-convention bump comes from an increase in support among men (up six points), veterans (up six points), and independents (up four points).
Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search) conducted the national poll of 1,000 likely voters for FOX News on September 7-8. "Likely voters" are defined as respondents who are considered more likely to vote in the November presidential election."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131912,00.html

Are they all "misweighted"?

Gallup and Time are (Rasmussan ripped them to shreds), Fox isn't (for once).

Exactly, that is where it will be won or lost.

Nope. It will be won or lost in the battleground states. Remember, we're discussing electoral votes here. The only key state Kerry wins right now is Michigan, and Bush lost there in 2000 anyway. Pennsylvania also went Democrat in 2000, and it's currently a toss-up. Basically, as someone else noted above, all Bush has to do is hold what he won in 2000 (which he will) and win Minnesota or Wisconsin, which went for Gore in 2000. Prediction: Bush will win BOTH of those states.

As for the debates, I will say again: Don't get your hopes up, fanboy. The libbies are "misunderestimating" President Bush again.

Kerry can't win unless Bush totally screws up.Like some NS poster said once "Bush could sodomize his daugther in the WH lawn...and The American idiots(50%) would still vote for him".

The Debates will be the October miracle. Kerry's been debating professionally for the last ~30 years, whereas Bush has an IQ of 91. More importantly, they'll be televised together, and Kerry's much taller.

Clinton didn't do a thing? I get so fucking tired of hearing that. I guess the prosecution of the 1993 WTC bombers is nothing. And the multiple bombings and missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps were nothing. And the foiling of the 2000 Millenium bombing attack was nothing. And putting forth the greatest amount of resources ever toward the elimination of al Qaeda was nothing as well. :rolleyes:

That was all nothing in comparison to ignoring intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks, talking tough but pulling resources away from the fight with al Qaeda, involving us in a war that has trapped our military and turned more people against us, right? Nothing? Right.


Don't forget that under the Clinton administration, we thwarted an attempt by al-Qaeda to bomb the Space Needle. This wasn't covered well, because, well, it was kept from happening...

I didn't support Bush in 2000, but he at least talked a good game, about being a uniter and not a divider, but, unfortunately, he's been about as divisive as they come.

Exactly. That's one of my main complaints with Mr. Bush right now. In 2000, he ran as a uniter, a bi-partisan politician. Now, he's about as partisan as they come. The US has never been so politically divided since the Civil War...hmm, could that possibly classify as a flip-flop? Nah, of course not. Mr. Bush just made a mistake, but at least he means well! :rolleyes:

Clinton didn't do a thing? I get so fucking tired of hearing that. I guess the prosecution of the 1993 WTC bombers is nothing.
Not nothing, but treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter, and not a military matter. We now know that was a BIG mistake.
And the multiple bombings and missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps were nothing.
Um, yeah, those actually were nothing. Ineffective, token measures.
And the foiling of the 2000 Millenium bombing attack was nothing.
Not nothing, but again a law enforcement vs. military mistake. The plotters were arrested (luckily), but nothing was done to retaliate against their source, their financiers, the people who harbored their training camps.
And putting forth the greatest amount of resources ever toward the elimination of al Qaeda was nothing as well.
Clinton did that? If he did, it sure didn't have any noticeable effect.

Don't forget that under the Clinton administration, we thwarted an attempt by al-Qaeda to bomb the Space Needle. This wasn't covered well, because, well, it was kept from happening...
I believe the Space Needle plot was part of the "Millenium" operation, although I could have the timeline a little off. I'm also not sure it was al Qaeda.

Yes, the successful operations are the ones you don't hear about. Are you assuming the Bush administration has accomplished no such operations?

Im kind of scared of Kerry winning, he is PRO-NAFTA, PRO-NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (voted yea on the house bill) PRO-PATRIOT ACT (voted yea on the bill) PRO-IRAQ WAR (voted for iraq war resolution)

Now he's trying to hide the fact he voted for those bills
Most people WILL vote for Kerry not on his issues he stands for but just because they hate bush. Which if you ask me is a pretty bad reason to support a candidate. Its like saying STALIN IS BETTER THEN HITLER SO IM GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM.

I just hate the politics in my country, its always a choice between the lesser of two evils. Don't get me wrong though i love voting in local and state elections (Ohio in my case). Thiers no attack adds, slandering are any of that BS. Plus the Republicans in my area at least are actually not very bad people

but the presidental election is a headache.
:headbang:

Most people WILL vote for Kerry not on his issues he stands for but just because they hate bush. Which if you ask me is a pretty bad reason to support a candidate. Its like saying STALIN IS BETTER THEN HITLER SO IM GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM.

You are entirely correct - voting because you hate another candidate, not necessarily because of the candidate you vote for is qualified, is the worst way to vote. Unfortunately, that is what this race has come down to. Kerry is far from ideal, but Bush is just...terrible. From my perspective, Kerry is indeed the lesser evil.

There is no sense in voting for a third party, because there is no way in hell that they'd gather enough votes to make an impact. Essentially, this election (and most others of the past half century) have become Hitler vs Stalin, with Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe all running as third party candidates :headbang:

Kerry can't win unless Bush totally screws up. Kerry has nothing to promise, it isn't how much better Kerry is (as he isn't), but people see him as a better alternative. I don't like either canidate, but Bush DOES have some aspects I prefer highly over Kerry.
Bush has totally screwed up since Sept. 11, 2001. Others might argue that it started with dirty voting in Florida?
I hate how people think Bush is a right-wing nutcase. He isn't even right wing, he's more moderate, its crazy. He's larger government, that's enough to say right there he isn't conservative.
The larger government is mostly due to a bloated army fighting a war that should never have been launched. Moderate? Naw!!!!

Kerry can win by attacking Bush's many failures, and keeping his cool in the debates.

Clinton did that? If he did, it sure didn't have any noticeable effect.

Gee, I don't remember any major landmarks being blown up on Clinton's watch....

Im kind of scared of Kerry winning, he is PRO-NAFTA, PRO-NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (voted yea on the house bill) PRO-PATRIOT ACT (voted yea on the bill) PRO-IRAQ WAR (voted for iraq war resolution)

Now he's trying to hide the fact he voted for those bills

Of course he is, since all of those turned out to be miserable failures. It IS still politics, after all. And on a similar note, very many of Kerry's so-called "flip-flops" took place years apart from eachother, or, as many here have said, are taken ridiculously far out of context.

There was some other stuff that I was gonna say, but it's not coming to mind at the moment. Oh well, another day, another post. Or somesuch.

Oh, and I must say, by the way, I'm proud of you guys. You managed to debate for five pages and still keep mostly civil to eachother. Thank you all, you've restored my faith in humanity. Er, almost.

Bush has totally screwed up since Sept. 11, 2001. Others might argue that it started with dirty voting in Florida?

The larger government is mostly due to a bloated army fighting a war that should never have been launched. Moderate? Naw!!!!

Kerry can win by attacking Bush's many failures, and keeping his cool in the debates.

What's that tune I hear playing?

Ah yes, "The Tired Old Saw"! :rolleyes:

Gee, I don't remember any major landmarks being blown up on Clinton's watch....
You also have obviously not read The 9/11 Commission Report.

No, but it's unfair to say that when the Bush administration foils an attack it's due to their vigilance, while the Clinton administration's successes are due to blind luck.
Actually, I believe the Space Needle attack was planned for 1998, though I do need to take another look at my sources for the exact date.

I never said it was due to "blind luck." But luck did play a part. Ask any counter-terrorism expert, they'll tell you luck is an essential part of any successful operation.

I believe the Space Needle plot was part of the "Millenium" operation, although I could have the timeline a little off. I'm also not sure it was al Qaeda.

Yes, the successful operations are the ones you don't hear about. Are you assuming the Bush administration has accomplished no such operations?

No, but it's unfair to say that when the Bush administration foils an attack it's due to their vigilance, while the Clinton administration's successes are due to blind luck.
Actually, I believe the Space Needle attack was planned for 1998, though I do need to take another look at my sources for the exact date.

What's that tune I hear playing?

Ah yes, "The Tired Old Saw"! :rolleyes:
Ummm can't relate to "The Tired Old Saw"!

I can relate to this:

"Hey what's that sound everybody look what's going down"

Bush = going down

Not nothing, but treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter, and not a military matter. We now know that was a BIG mistake.

Um, yeah, those actually were nothing. Ineffective, token measures.

Not nothing, but again a law enforcement vs. military mistake. The plotters were arrested (luckily), but nothing was done to retaliate against their source, their financiers, the people who harbored their training camps.

Clinton did that? If he did, it sure didn't have any noticeable effect.By all measures of comparison, Clinton's tactics were more effective than Bush's have been. There's absolutely no comparison. For all Bush's bluster, he has yet to prevent a single attack on US soil, and has done nothing to harden our defenses. In fact, a little know fact that our so-called liberal media has failed to mention is that even homeland security will be facing a cut in 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html) under Bush's current plans. The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include $2.3 billion in spending cuts from virtually all domestic programs not mandated by law, including education, homeland security and others central to Bush's campaign.
That was buried in a Wasington Post article that has gotten literally no airplay in any news cycle I've seen or read about. And you want to say that Bush has done more on the threat of terrorism than Clinton? Give me a break.

What's that tune I hear playing?

Ah yes, "The Tired Old Saw"!

Tired old saw it may be, but it's hacking away at a rotten, rotten area.

One thing that will help Kerry is that there is over 2 million Americans overseas and Bush policies have made life difficult for ex-pats. So a majority of those votes will go for Kerry and they don't sho wup in the polls. One other reason they will go his way is because overseas there is no Fox news or right wing radio. So they willhave to form their own decisions.

One other reason they will go his way is because overseas there is no Fox news or right wing radio. So they willhave to form their own decisions.

Oh please. I hate Fox News as much as the next guy, possibly more, but nobody is forcing anybody to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh. These people will most likely vote for a candidate based on their credentials, not on the absence of Fox News.

The point there is a certain bias in American media. Without the very slanted and biased news people come up with different conclusions. There are of course soem who lean every way but it is hard to realise how slanted the media is until you are away from it for a few years.

Electoral vote wise I mean. How are you tracking it, and what states will this election be fought in?
By shooting himself in the face, then all the sheeple will give him the sympathy vote for being stupid, and disfigured.

By all measures of comparison, Clinton's tactics were more effective than Bush's have been. There's absolutely no comparison. For all Bush's bluster, he has yet to prevent a single attack on US soil, and has done nothing to harden our defenses.
How do you know Bush hasn't prevented a single attack on US soil? How could you possibly know that? Are you a member of the CIA or FBI? What we DO know is that there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. And our defenses have been hardened somewhat, though not a whole lot. We could not possibly harden every target to the level you seem to require to give Bush any credit. It is a much better strategy to fight terrorists now, in their home, rather than wait and fight them here.
And you want to say that Bush has done more on the threat of terrorism than Clinton? Give me a break.
No, that's what YOU want to say I said. I never said Bush has done more to fight terrorism than Clinton. I simply pointed out the other side of the comments you made about Clinton.

good eye :sniper: i shoot you run Electoral vote wise I mean. How are you tracking it, and what states will this election be fought in?

Listen people, its simple for how Kerry can win... he simply needs to demonstrate his economic policies to the public in a way that farmer john can understand and yet still make the intellectualized masses happy. then he needs to demonize bush...thats what'd i'd do and hey...i have my own country

good eye :sniper: i shoot you run

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep10.html

check out this site.

There is a Republican version if your are interested, but is isnt updated as often.

that here http://www.electionprojection.com/

but I dont think its as accurate/objective

Ohio... Bush 52%, Kerry 42%
Florida... Bush 51%, Kerry 46%
Wisconsin... Bush 52%, Kerry 44%
Illinois... Kerry 49%, Bush 45%
New Jersey... Bush 49%, Kerry 45% (2000 result: Gore by 15.8%!)

And within single digits in New York...

I don't know what you liberals are so happy about. I'm getting scred that Bush might win as big as Reagan after the debates. I mean look at the history...

1. Al Gore is the only liberal to debate in the last decade on the national level, and he was wasted so bad X 3 that they may want to throw that one out.

2. Conventions were a bad sign if Kerry thinks he is going to pull that "Reporting for duty sir." with Bush standing right next to hom. Bush has 4 years leading the nation and providing leadership for the world. Like it or not, Kerry has to nail this debate and destroy Bush or it is over. We all know Bush, and we have no clue of Kerry other than he looks like Learch and talks like an eastern Al Gore.

I say I'm affraid Bush might win as big as Ronald Reagan not becuase I support him as much as Reagon, but becuase he is no Reagan. I like Bush, but they are not in the same league, and you libs are making it way to easy for him, which could hurt all of the Senate seats nationwide as well.

To much power in one party is just as bad as having everything under liberal control...the horror...

good eye :sniper: i shoot you run

**bursts into song**
"The words you scribbled on the walls
With the loss of friends you didn't have
I'll call you when the time is right
Are you in or are you out?
For them all to know the end of us all "

**stops**

Wait. That's not what you meant, was it?

(and yet ANOTHER obscure reference that nobody will understand :D)

**bursts into song**
"The words you scribbled on the walls
With the loss of friends you didn't have
I'll call you when the time is right
Are you in or are you out?
For them all to know the end of us all "

**stops**

Wait. That's not what you meant, was it?

(and yet ANOTHER obscure reference that nobody will understand :D)

Coheed and Cambria, In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth 3. Good CD.

How can Kerry win?

A) He needs to stop being such a pussy and defend his ass when the Bush Admid. and people like the Swift Boat Vets talk shit about him.

B) He needs to loosen up. I saw him on C SPAN speaking in Michigan today, and he looked INCREDIBLY relaxed and cool. He needs to keep it up.

C) Show up Bush in the debates. He can do it. He just has to stop running Al Gore's campaign.

Coheed and Cambria, In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth 3. Good CD.

...Holy crap, someone understood my obscure music reference o___o

Damn good cd, I supposedly have the comic on pre-order :D

CNNs poll is misweighted...

Remember, any poll that you don't agree with is misweighted. :)

How can kerry win? He cannot. He is weak on defense. He is weak on terrorists. He is weak on taxes, unless you consider raising them to be a strongpoint.

He will lose and become a game show question.

Sept 16 electoral vote..

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep16.html

Sept 16 electoral vote..

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep16.html

Thanks for the link, that's cool!

Their predictor is right about where my personal predictions are. I've been saying that Bush will get around 300 electoral votes.

Thanks for the link, that's cool!

Their predictor is right about where my personal predictions are. I've been saying that Bush will get around 300 electoral votes.

Except...
it gives Mr. Bush "winning" states well within the margin of error. In Pennsylvania, for example (a state that site shows Bush as winning), Bush only has a 1% lead in a poll that's far from accurate. I know it could go both ways on that one, but states like that shouldn't even be counted on electoral maps this early in the race, as it paints a very misleading picture.

Here's a better one. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm) It makes any state that's within 5 points a tossup, so it's a bit more accurate representation of where the race stands currently. Bush is up slightly, but nowhere near the 270 he needs to win.

And I'll make this prediction--Minnesota is no more a tossup than Alabama, and New Jersey even less so. They're going for Kerry--bank on it.

Here's a better one. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Projection.htm) It makes any state that's within 5 points a tossup, so it's a bit more accurate representation of where the race stands currently. Bush is up slightly, but nowhere near the 270 he needs to win.

And I'll make this prediction--Minnesota is no more a tossup than Alabama, and New Jersey even less so. They're going for Kerry--bank on it.

the way i see it kerry needs to hold all gore's states and take nevada, colorado and new hampshire, or either take ohio or florida. if he loses a few gore took he may need one of the big ones and two of the small ones. i didn't do the math to figure how the electoral college has shifted due to pop changes but that's my best guess.

And I'll make this prediction--Minnesota is no more a tossup than Alabama, and New Jersey even less so. They're going for Kerry--bank on it.

seriously, minnesota hasn't gone for a republican presidential candidate since nixon in 72 - and eisenhower before that. its usually really close, but goes democrat regardless.
(or democratic-farm-labor in this case, since apparently they are still holding on to the old progressive alliance out that way)

He could buy a lottery ticket. Or maybe armwrestling, he looks pretty strong...I hear he may or may not have been in the millitary and I think those navy folks are pretty strong even though they just give other millitary guys rides to and from places... :)

How can kerry win? He cannot. He is weak on defense. He is weak on terrorists. He is weak on taxes, unless you consider raising them to be a strongpoint.

He will lose and become a game show question.
A very obscure Game Show question. I still think he should go the "I shot myself in the face because they found out about my gay affair with a horse" sympathy ploy.

Kerry needs to step up his freaking attacks on Bush.

He's been totally emasculated by the Bush campaign. He tries to drive for the middle, "Oh I'm a moderate, I'm against gay marriage but for civil unions, I'm for the Iraq war but againt the way it was handled, I'm against partial birth abortion but for the abortion pill..."

And all this time Bush is driving as far right as he can and motivating his base unlike anything I've seen before. The religious right is showing full force, while apathetic teens and minorities don't even vote.


Kerry is sitting back and taking it like a little b!tch, he should have come out against those Swift Boat Veterans for Hire ads as SOON as they hit TV, with McCain calling on Bush to condemn them, why the HELL didn't Kerry attack them LOUDLY?!

Bush has a post-convention bounce, but it's fading, this is when Kerry needs to come out real loud, and say Bush has destroyed the economy, regardless if that's true or not. Kerry needs to get on the freakin offensive.


THAT is how Kerry can win.

Kerry needs to step up his freaking attacks on Bush.

He's been totally emasculated by the Bush campaign. He tries to drive for the middle, "Oh I'm a moderate, I'm against gay marriage but for civil unions, I'm for the Iraq war but againt the way it was handled, I'm against partial birth abortion but for the abortion pill..."

And all this time Bush is driving as far right as he can and motivating his base unlike anything I've seen before. The religious right is showing full force, while apathetic teens and minorities don't even vote.


Kerry is sitting back and taking it like a little b!tch, he should have come out against those Swift Boat Veterans for Hire ads as SOON as they hit TV, with McCain calling on Bush to condemn them, why the HELL didn't Kerry attack them LOUDLY?!

Bush has a post-convention bounce, but it's fading, this is when Kerry needs to come out real loud, and say Bush has destroyed the economy, regardless if that's true or not. Kerry needs to get on the freakin offensive.

THAT is how Kerry can win.
Have you seen Kerry over the last week or so? He's been taking it right to Bush, and it's been refreshing to see.

Dunno about winning, but Kerry isn't going to win by tying his campaign ads to obvious forgeries. :)

Some ideas...
Get that clip of Bush in 2000 saying "I don't think our troops should be used for nation-building" and play it nonstop on TVs across the battleground states. And end those ads with a big large "FLIP-FLOPPER!"

Do something similar with Cheney saying gay marriage should be left to the states.

Above all, attack, attack, attack...it's not over yet.

How can Kerry win?

One Word: Debates
Memories of 2000 roll around my brain. Oh, the loud sighs of Al Gore...the exaggerated makeup...the posturing, invading Bush's personal space.

Don't get cocky about Kerry's vaunted debating ability...after all, the same was said about Gore's, and we all know what happened.

Actually, I think Kerry will do much better in the debates than Al did. He's not as much of an arrogant As* that Gore was (Hey, I'm Mr. Liberal, but I know an arrogant as* when I see one..)

Some ideas...
Get that clip of Bush in 2000 saying "I don't think our troops should be used for nation-building" and play it nonstop on TVs across the battleground states. And end those ads with a big large "FLIP-FLOPPER!"

Do something similar with Cheney saying gay marriage should be left to the states.

Above all, attack, attack, attack...it's not over yet.

What would that prove? Our soilders aren't nation building they are still fighting "insurgents", "terrorists", whatever you want to call them. Basically the there's still some people resisting the fact that Saddam is gone and it won't be a relgion based government anymore. Besides, Bush has already come up with a withdrawal plan. Easily defeated ads.

And Cheney has publicy stated he doesn't agree with Bush on the gay marriage amendment...

Basically the there's still some people resisting the fact that Saddam is gone and it won't be a relgion based government anymore. Besides, Bush has already come up with a withdrawal plan. Easily defeated ads.

Wrong. Iraq was never a religious-based government. In a region of theocracies, Iraq was one of the few places of religious tolerance. Maybe not political tolerance. ;)

Kerry could put on a skirt, a blond wig, and say "I'm hillary, vote for me!" At least then the democrat voters would actually vote for him instead of against Bush.

If Kerry loses this year, inside sources indicate Hillary is preparing for a 2008 run, probably against either McCain or Swarzenegger if he gets his amendment passed. Cheney aint running.

Iraq was one of the most secular governments that ever existed in the middle east. In fact, the only reason it has'nt broken in 3 different pieces, is that Saddams' tyrannical strength kept the 3 main factions (Kurds, Shiites, and Suunis) from killing each other and starting a civil war. The country only exists in the shape it is now is because after World War 1, when Britain was carving up it's share of the Ottoman Empire, they had no idea what the cultures were about, and they just wanted to pump oil and largely ignore the place (until the rebellion came). In fact, it would be BETTER, in my opinion, if Iraq did split up into 3.



Edit: I just saw Chodolos' post, I think we cross-posted..If Hillarys' running, I'm voting Independent.

Wrong. Iraq was never a religious-based government. In a region of theocracies, Iraq was one of the few places of religious tolerance. Maybe not political tolerance. ;)

Yeah with Saddam saying he was the next coming of Muhommad.....

I can't find a link to that..but an HBO documentary about him had the clip of him saying it. And it was a government run in by Islam. Fighting the same fight against the West, granted in a different way, then Al Queda and other terrorists orginizations.

He used government money to donate to the families of suicide bombers fighting the radicial islamic jihad (only term I can think of.) It doesn't get much more religious then that.

I may be new, but I have only one thing to say:

You are all loons.

Actually two:

According to the Patriot Act, the Government has control over the media as long as there is a 'orange' terror alert. Nuff said.

I may be new, but I have only one thing to say:

You are all loons.

Actually two:

According to the Patriot Act, the Government has control over the media as long as there is a 'orange' terror alert. Nuff said.

LMFAO! Awesome man, awesome. :D


btw, Derelict, it DOES get more religious than that...just take a look at Iran.

If Kerry loses this year, inside sources indicate Hillary is preparing for a 2008 run, probably against either McCain or Swarzenegger if he gets his amendment passed. Cheney aint running.

Are you kidding? There's ZERO chance of that happening. There's no way it'd ever pass, especially since 9/11. McCain? He might run in 2008, but Arnie can't and won't...