NationStates Jolt Archive

yes, mr moral values once again seemingly won't walk the walk after talking the talk.... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19167-2005Jan18.html?sub=AR)


President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said, "I am sure [White House] phone lines are lighting up all over."

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.


To refresh our memory on Bush's position on it from the debates (http://debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html):


But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.


HE made gay marriage an issue during the campaign, touted his proposal of a constitutional ammendmend to combat it, and gave every indication that this would be a priority for him in this term. It was a big talking point often used in the values debate between the two that included things like denigrating Kerry for NOT supporting such an ammendment because of his Catholic roots. The idea being that given the Catholic church is against gay marriage that Kerry should feel obligated to vote along church lines.

Of course, even on that front the hypocricy is rampant. After all, the Catholic Church has a policy of only supporting what they call "Just Wars" and the Pope came out in opposition of the War in Iraq, but nobody criticises Catholic Republicans (such as a certain new Attorney General nominee) who express views contrary to the Church on that matter - which is also an issue of life and death.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the next Republican nominee in '08 if they once again try to promise movement on "values" as part of their campaign. Eventually the religious right is going to get tired of empty promises.

Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, maybe he'll stop

pandering to the far right. I won't guarantee it, but maybe this is sign he's

growing a set of balls.

You mean grow a set of balls and come BACK to the right wing.

Check this out:http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bushresume.pdf

Welcome to the world election politics Zep.

Check this out:http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bushresume.pdf
I do beleive there is another page that refutes this one point by point. The one I find funny is the "First president in office with a criminal record"...
Anybody here ever heard of George Washington?

Recall that first Bush was 'releuctant' to supportthe amendment, then he was for it, then late in the campaign he backed away from supporting it, then he supported it fully again, and now supposedly he's reluctant again.

This sounds like a guy who tends to agree with the opinion expressed by the last guy he talked to.

All a marriage amendment would do would make gay people mad for a long time. Keeping an amendment from passing would only make right wing nut-jobs mad for a long time.

Making marriage legal would make gay people very happy and only make right wing nut-jobs (and maybe a few conservatives) mad for about a month. I'm for this option.

yes, mr moral values once again seemingly won't walk the walk after talking the talk.... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19167-2005Jan18.html?sub=AR)



To refresh our memory on Bush's position on it from the debates (http://debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html):



HE made gay marriage an issue during the campaign, touted his proposal of a constitutional ammendmend to combat it, and gave every indication that this would be a priority for him in this term. It was a big talking point often used in the values debate between the two that included things like denigrating Kerry for NOT supporting such an ammendment because of his Catholic roots. The idea being that given the Catholic church is against gay marriage that Kerry should feel obligated to vote along church lines.

Of course, even on that front the hypocricy is rampant. After all, the Catholic Church has a policy of only supporting what they call "Just Wars" and the Pope came out in opposition of the War in Iraq, but nobody criticises Catholic Republicans (such as a certain new Attorney General nominee) who express views contrary to the Church on that matter - which is also an issue of life and death.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the next Republican nominee in '08 if they once again try to promise movement on "values" as part of their campaign. Eventually the religious right is going to get tired of empty promises.

Wow.

The guy decides to follow a hard line with attempting to ban gay marriage completely and *wham* he gets bashed...so he decides to maybe, give the homosexual people a break from fearing a constitutional ban on marriage by not aggressively pursuing something he might've been able to pass with a "red" nation and he gets bashed again?

Maybe you're right, maybe the republicans do do a little too much flip flopping although some call it compromising (which seems to be a bad word among alot of people who just want to flame away on anything that the world seems to disagree with.)

And by the way, why are you following American media? Might American politics somehow have an immediate change in how you will be able to live? Does it somehow change your life that Bush is flip flopping?

Stop the Bush bashing. Stop flaming to flame. Yes everyone agrees with you that he's a horrible president so just get over it.

I do beleive there is another page that refutes this one point by point. The one I find funny is the "First president in office with a criminal record"...
Anybody here ever heard of George Washington?

Still funny.

Well Zepp, I guess your nation of Canada has nothing for you to ever speak about. Why is that?

Oh I forgot, Canada is lame-o! Does anything of any importance ever happen there? You never talk about your own country, are you somehow envious that you live next to the States. You can admit it, we are all friends here.

Will Smith puts it best:

"Somehow, I told you so doesn't quite cut it".

I've been saying Bush would turn back on his campaign promises since before election season. He didn't seem to have any qualms with breaking the promises of his last election.

HE made gay marriage an issue during the campaign, touted his proposal of a constitutional ammendmend to combat it, and gave every indication that this would be a priority for him in this term. It was a big talking point often used in the values debate between the two that included things like denigrating Kerry for NOT supporting such an ammendment because of his Catholic roots. The idea being that given the Catholic church is against gay marriage that Kerry should feel obligated to vote along church lines.

Of course, even on that front the hypocricy is rampant. After all, the Catholic Church has a policy of only supporting what they call "Just Wars" and the Pope came out in opposition of the War in Iraq, but nobody criticises Catholic Republicans (such as a certain new Attorney General nominee) who express views contrary to the Church on that matter - which is also an issue of life and death.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the next Republican nominee in '08 if they once again try to promise movement on "values" as part of their campaign. Eventually the religious right is going to get tired of empty promises.
Zepp ... if it had been John Kerry who dit this, you and all the others on here who were rabid Kerry fans would have sworn up and down that either it wasn't a "flip/flop," or that he was demonstrating "courage" by changing his position.

If you're going to rail against politicians who change their positions because of changing circumstances, or because of changing politics, or because the friggin' wind changes, then at least do try to be consistent.

Zepp ... if it had been John Kerry who dit this, you and all the others on here who were rabid Kerry fans would have sworn up and down that either it wasn't a "flip/flop," or that he was demonstrating "courage" by changing his position.

If you're going to rail against politicians who change their positions because of changing circumstances, or because of changing politics, or because the friggin' wind changes, then at least do try to be consistent.

Of course, attack the person instead of the ideal. Bush goes back on his campaign promises, but it's perfectly OK because some other politician would have done it, too.

Of course, attack the person instead of the ideal. Bush goes back on his campaign promises, but it's perfectly OK because some other politician would have done it, too.
Um ... exactly where did I say it was ok? This is not an issue with which I am very familiar. I honestly believe that civil marraige should be legal for any two people who want it. Any religious marriage ceremony should be strictly between the couple and the religious organization which holds it.

Additionally, where oh were did I "attack" Zeppistan? Please enlighten me so I can apologize.

[Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council] said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

Not that this guy has a blinkered view of the real world or anything...

Not that this guy has a blinkered view of the real world or anything...

The fact that he shares the same name as the late actor who played Norman Bates is merely pure coincidence.

Anyways, this is just more partisan politics. When your side is doing it, it's being flexible and compromising. When the other guy does it, it's flip-flopping.

You mean grow a set of balls and come BACK to the right wing. :headbang:

*shudders*

I didn't know people had wings....

Guess what, he won't ban abortion either. The Republicans, (the real ones, not the unwashed Yahoos that spit venom on this forum) are interested in one thing, money. Lots and Lots of money.

If they did away with their red herrings, what on earth would they use to keep their right wing voter block in line.

Of course, attack the person instead of the ideal. Bush goes back on his campaign promises, but it's perfectly OK because some other politician would have done it, too.

While I wouldn't characterize Eutrusca's post as an attack, I would point out that calling into question the motivations of an opponent is a legitimate rhetorical technique in use since Greek rhetorical practice (ethos). I also see Eutrusca's point. Zeppistan's original post isn't an analytical or objectively insightful view of anything, except perhaps Zeppistan's convictions.

Consider the remainder of the article:


"It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained.

Social conservatives who helped stoke record turnout for Bush in the 2004 election expressed concern that he is dropping the issue he passionately touted during the campaign now that he has been reelected. "The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage. The president's leadership is desperately needed." Minnery and Perkins called the White House to complain about Bush's position.

Some conservatives, however, said they trust Bush will still push for the amendment, despite his remarks. Janet M. LaRue of Concerned Women for America, a Washington-based group that seeks to reverse the nation's "moral decline," said Bush was pointing to the realities of a divided Senate. "I think he was speaking practically about the fact that there are senators who are waiting to see whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by a court," a position LaRue called "foolish."

Still, she said, "The responsibility for an amendment lies with Congress, not the White House."

Bush, whose reelection strategy was predicated on record-high turnout among social conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, will need the support of his base to help pressure Congress to approve his domestic agenda over the next four years, Republicans say. While Bush remains wildly popular among most conservatives, some are wondering whether the president will play down social issues in the second term as he seeks to cement a legacy focused more on cutting taxes and creating private Social Security retirement accounts. Last week, some Republicans complained that Bush's choice to head the Republican National Committee, Kenneth B. Mehlman, has picked an abortion rights supporter to be co-chairman.
The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them over the past two days that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won.

"The president will continue to advocate the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters yesterday. "It is something he believes very strongly in. In fact, he has already spent a lot of political capital on getting that initiative moving."

Had Zeppistan read that (assuming it was innocent oversight), he would've had plenty of reason to reconsider the absolute nature of his claims. He claims Bush's policy towards the same sex marriage amendment is "hypocrisy" and the latest of his "empty promises". He also claims that it has "angered [bush's] base".

With a quick look at the article this is likely very unrealistic. Tony Perkins (the source most strongly against Bush's lack of aggression on same sex marriages, of those mentioned) admits this could possibly be a mis-articulation of what the Bush administration promised in campaigns. Is Bush's base angered? "Bush remains wildly popular among most conservatives" the article declares. It attributes "[White House] phone lines...lighting up" only to "some", a seeming vast minority, of the Bush's conservative base. The article fairly clearly denotes that conservatives unhappy about Bush's pace on a same-sex marriage amendment are the exception rather than the rule.

I feel Zeppistan has almost completely ignored these opposing viewpoints and evidence. In fact, I think he's ignored even interpretive middle-ground, too. It seems he's so consumed in the conviction of Bush's 'evilness' that he is unable to look up from these conclusions long enough to try to convince the rest of us of them. This seems a systemic problem. I think criticism of Zeppistan's posting habits is not unrealistic or unwarranted.

This isn't adequate evidence to support his claim. It's only logical to wonder why he's made the claim.

Meh!

I don't think it's dead yet. Just not as important since he does not contorl the Senate.

I have a feeling it will appear again in the next couple years.

I predicted this would happen and nobody believed me. There is no reason to keep around stupid policies that do not win votes.

Zepp ... if it had been John Kerry who dit this, you and all the others on here who were rabid Kerry fans would have sworn up and down that either it wasn't a "flip/flop," or that he was demonstrating "courage" by changing his position.

If you're going to rail against politicians who change their positions because of changing circumstances, or because of changing politics, or because the friggin' wind changes, then at least do try to be consistent.

Yeah, yeah, sure ... you make up a hypothetical situation, declare an arbitrary result and base your argument on that fiction. It fell apart right at "if it had been John Kerry who dit (sic) this."

yes, mr moral values once again seemingly won't walk the walk after talking the talk.... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19167-2005Jan18.html?sub=AR)



To refresh our memory on Bush's position on it from the debates (http://debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html):



HE made gay marriage an issue during the campaign, touted his proposal of a constitutional ammendmend to combat it, and gave every indication that this would be a priority for him in this term. It was a big talking point often used in the values debate between the two that included things like denigrating Kerry for NOT supporting such an ammendment because of his Catholic roots. The idea being that given the Catholic church is against gay marriage that Kerry should feel obligated to vote along church lines.

Of course, even on that front the hypocricy is rampant. After all, the Catholic Church has a policy of only supporting what they call "Just Wars" and the Pope came out in opposition of the War in Iraq, but nobody criticises Catholic Republicans (such as a certain new Attorney General nominee) who express views contrary to the Church on that matter - which is also an issue of life and death.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the next Republican nominee in '08 if they once again try to promise movement on "values" as part of their campaign. Eventually the religious right is going to get tired of empty promises.

I very highly doubt the constitutional amendment ban would survive the onslaught of challenges it would receive. Don't think he didn't know this and I'm not so sure a failed amendment is what he has in mind for a legacy. The only thing such a ban would serve to protect is various Christian denominations which are becoming so increasingly split on the issues swirling around homosexuality esp. marriage, that cracks are beginning to show.

I predicted this would happen and nobody believed me. There is no reason to keep around stupid policies that do not win votes.
Didnt you also predict that Vanna white would marry Teddy Kennedy?

Yeah, yeah, sure ... you make up a hypothetical situation, declare an arbitrary result and base your argument on that fiction. It fell apart right at "if it had been John Kerry who dit (sic) this."
You two haven't met? Welcome to Eutrusca World....

Me a rabid Kerry supporter?

Really? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=326294)


You know, the more I watch Kerry the more I realize that the Democrats really made their task more difficult than they should have.

He is damn near useless. He still hasn't been able to define himself outside of the smear campaign of the Shrub Attack Machine. As Jon Stewart put it after showing a clip of him defending himself in an interview "He actually looks more guilty telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying".

As it stands, I have come to the depressing realization that if he wins it will be only because people want Bush out no matter what - not because they actually like this guy.

Hell - at this point I'm almost wishing they'd chosen Sharpton. At least the fight would have been entertaining!

But no... it's one more clip after another of Kerry droning on and on in his dispassionate monotone. He has all the natural charisma of tree bark.

And what astounds me the most is that the Dems can't band together to put a more effective strategy in place. The only things to prick the protective veneer of GW have been the shenanigans of his own people, and moveon.org. The fact that the Democrats are not light years ahead of Bush in the polls is a product of their own ineffectiveness in this campaign to date.

If I have one hope, it is a pipe dream that they recognized that GW had the big war chest and this is part of a larger strategy. That they are biding their time waiting for a last minute blitz to take out their big guns rather than give him time to come up with effective counter strategies. And hoping that GW's attack messages are stale by then. A game of prodding him along to expend his energy now rather than as the race comes down to the wire.

But I'm not convinced that Kerry is that smart. I believe that he is decent and sincere. And I'll bet he wishes he could take back some of the more extreme views he held in his youth, but that was a product of the times - and passion is after all primarily the primary purview of youth. But he was in the public eye then and that made it part of his record. The fact that GW feels that his concurrent activities of alcohol drug abuse should be off the table is disingenuous. At least Kerry was working FOR something at the time rather than getting high and making easy money through Dad's connections.

I just wish Kerry would show some of that old fire pointed in a new direction.

And I condemn those whose attack strategies include denigrating him for marrying well. Should that make Laura Bush fair game as a gold digger too? The tactics to date have been more distasteful than I could have imagined. There are no issues - only personal vindictiveness.


In the end - I think this race is going to come down to "do you hate Bush enough to take a chance on the dull, skinny guy with a pole up his keyster."

The fact that I hope the answer is yes strikes even me as rather sad. The electorate deserves better options than both of these guys.


And I thought we had bad choices up here.....



However, that does not negate the fact that Bush largely won this election on two key areas. The War on Terror, and "family values". HE was the one that put the emphasis on how he would fight hard to ensure that his Christian beliefs were reflected in policy. HE was the one who made gay marriage an election issue. It was the Republican party who ensured that gay marriage ammendments were voting issues in several key battleground states to mobilize the social conservative vote.

And, indeed, exit poll after exit poll confirmed that with people who stated that they had voted Bush, when asked why "moral values" was one of the predominant main reasons given.

And now that he has won he is backing off. Reneging on his promise to the people who voted for him. Becoming exactly what he accused Kerry of being when he criticised Kerry for not pushing an anti-abortion agenda given his religious affiliation.


If Kerry had done the same - yes, I'd call him a flip-flopper on that issue too!


Call me a Bush-basher if you like. Doesn't change the facts in this case now does it?

Nope.

Consider the remainder of the article:



Had Zeppistan read that (assuming it was innocent oversight), he would've had plenty of reason to reconsider the absolute nature of his claims. He claims Bush's policy towards the same sex marriage amendment is "hypocrisy" and the latest of his "empty promises". He also claims that it has "angered [bush's] base".


Claiming you will fight for something to get elected and then backing off after the election IS hypocricy.

With a quick look at the article this is likely very unrealistic. Tony Perkins (the source most strongly against Bush's lack of aggression on same sex marriages, of those mentioned) admits this could possibly be a mis-articulation of what the Bush administration promised in campaigns.


No it doesn't. It says in plain English regarding Bush's current position that "It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained"

Bush made MANY statements on this issue during the campaign, none of which match his current position. Perkins' is stating in a manner to avoid directly calling Bush a liar that Bush has changed his position. He is clearly NOT trying to say that Bush was unclear in how he presented his intentions before.

Is Bush's base angered? "Bush remains wildly popular among most conservatives" the article declares. It attributes "[White House] phone lines...lighting up" only to "some", a seeming vast minority, of the Bush's conservative base. The article fairly clearly denotes that conservatives unhappy about Bush's pace on a same-sex marriage amendment are the exception rather than the rule.


Well his change in position has just come out. Give it time. But the social right (to diferentiate from the vanilla catch-all definition of "conservatives") certainly backed him to the hilt based on certain positions that he presented. Backing off of those position may cause a feeling of betrayal within that group that could have a detrimental effect in '08 if they distrust the Republicans to follow through for them. They will never vote Democrat, but they might just stay home. And that could swing a few states back to the Democrats.

I feel Zeppistan has almost completely ignored these opposing viewpoints and evidence. In fact, I think he's ignored even interpretive middle-ground, too. It seems he's so consumed in the conviction of Bush's 'evilness' that he is unable to look up from these conclusions long enough to try to convince the rest of us of them. This seems a systemic problem. I think criticism of Zeppistan's posting habits is not unrealistic or unwarranted.


Well, when you try and twist the words of the very person doing the complaining about the flip-flop as being a voice in opposition to the very viewpoint that the story ios about - I think your analysis is far more disingenuous than mine!

And if you think pissing off a portion of your base, and incidentally a portion of your base that consistently has had high voter turnout for your party - well then that is your right. He has not even been innaugurated yet for his second term. He has four more years to either keep these people enthusiastic about the party for the next candidate, or to disapoint them. Frankly, I don't think he is off to a good start.

And neither does Mr. Perkins.

While he may not be proposing such an amendment right now, he may be just preserving his political capital to spend on the other items on his plate.

He may still propose such an amendment. Before people usually go through with such actions, they usually caucus in the halls to see how many votes they're going to get - or how many deals they'll have to make to get those votes.

Just the threat of such an amendment, and the bans that were enacted by stunning majorities in eleven states, seems, for the moment, to have stopped gay marriage in its tracks.

It may be that such an amendment will come up later in his term. In the meantime, other issues may well get more attention.

If you consider that fixing Social Security (regardless of how you end up doing it, it needs some work - and would benefit far more people than any "gay marriage" amendment) is a good idea (even if you don't agree with Bush's plan), then the flip-flop isn't a bad thing. And I'm speaking as a conservative.

Only a second-term President could even raise the issue of Social Security, because it's the third rail of politics. In order to get someone to pass some legislation to help the upcoming retirees, he may be making a sacrifice - all of his remaining political capital. Sounds like a good idea to me. And it makes his election strategy look that much smarter than Kerry's.

So it makes Bush look smarter than Kerry to me - again.

To me, it doesn't even come close to the flip-flop over over 30 votes against firearm ownership (I'm talking outright bans, the 10,000 percent tax on ammunition), innumerable speeches where he says that no one should own a gun, and then speeches during the election where he says it's ok to own certain guns, and goes out and kills ducks.

Oh, and we'll forget about that war trophy he brought back from the Vietnam War. Even if it's so much as a bolt-action rifle, it's a BATF violation and a violation of military regulations to have brought it back. But I guess that when he became Senator, and they re-wrote the paperwork on his less than honorable discharge, they went ahead and covered the paperwork for that old rifle as well.

But I'm sure that he'd be glad to put anyone else behind bars for doing the same thing.

Wait, you mean you're surprised he's not an honest politition?

Honestly, that's the way elections are won. Both sides lie to some extent, and the trick is to try to figure out 1) who's lying less, and 2) which lies are more harmful.

Personally that news makes me glad- I didn't vote for Bush hated the choices I had but felt Bush could do greater harm- and his stand on that issue was one of the deciding issues that made me vote for the other guy.

I'm actually surprised that he isn't trying to go through with this though- happy about it, but surprised.

Yeah, yeah, sure ... you make up a hypothetical situation, declare an arbitrary result and base your argument on that fiction. It fell apart right at "if it had been John Kerry who dit (sic) this."
Oh, God. Not another Grammar Nazi! :D

You two haven't met? Welcome to Eutrusca World....
For comparison purposes, and to illustrate the disaprity, the illustration was a good one. :P

... Bush largely won this election on two key areas. The War on Terror, and "family values". HE was the one that put the emphasis on how he would fight hard to ensure that his Christian beliefs were reflected in policy. HE was the one who made gay marriage an election issue. It was the Republican party who ensured that gay marriage ammendments were voting issues in several key battleground states to mobilize the social conservative vote.

And, indeed, exit poll after exit poll confirmed that with people who stated that they had voted Bush, when asked why "moral values" was one of the predominant main reasons given.
Comeon, Zepp, you and I both know that getting a an amendment to the Constitution passed is like pulling teeth. The analogy between Bush on this issue and Kerry on issues the right accused him of "flip/flopping" on is, as far as I'm concerned, a valid one.

Comeon, Zepp, you and I both know that getting a an amendment to the Constitution passed is like pulling teeth. The analogy between Bush on this issue and Kerry on issues the right accused him of "flip/flopping" on is, as far as I'm concerned, a valid one.


So, if - according to you - it's a valid analogy, and the Republican's made great political hay out of that term against Kerry, why are you on my back for applying it to Bush?

Did the Republican's trademark that designation? Can they not take what they dish out?


Or do you just object to it on some principle that was saddly lacking when that term was being used against Kerry? Because I sure don't remember you calling it an unfair statement back in August, September, etc.

Fact: Bush won.
Fact: Bush and the Republ;ican's ARE the ones steering policy by way of their majority.
Fact: They went to great lengths to paint the opposition as a flip-flopper, and expressign how bad a thing that was.


Excuse the hell out of me for holding the mirror of hypocricy up to your precious Flip-flopper in Chief...

I think the difference here is that Kerry has a voting record.

If you have a voting record as a politician, you're going to have a record as a flip-flopper - far more times than any executive.

So as a matter of just counting, I bet it's easy - incredibly easy - to paint Kerry as an inveterate flip-flopper who has done it more times than he can count or remember.

As an executive, Bush probably has flip-flopped quite a bit - but not nearly as much as Kerry - in fact, I bet it's one or two orders of magnitude less.

But not because of any character difference. It's the nature of each job.

A legislator will always be a much greater flip-flopper than a governor or President.

While he may not be proposing such an amendment right now, he may be just preserving his political capital to spend on the other items on his plate.

He may still propose such an amendment. Before people usually go through with such actions, they usually caucus in the halls to see how many votes they're going to get - or how many deals they'll have to make to get those votes.


President's cannot propose such an ammendment. That is not how it works. It must come from the floor of the Congress, and Bush already called for such legislation to be drawn up (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html). And he re-iterated that call repeatedly as part of his campaign strategy.



If you consider that fixing Social Security (regardless of how you end up doing it, it needs some work - and would benefit far more people than any "gay marriage" amendment) is a good idea (even if you don't agree with Bush's plan), then the flip-flop isn't a bad thing. And I'm speaking as a conservative.


Agreed it needs work. Agreed that I don't like his plan. It has some interesting points, but on the whole I think it is a bad idea.

To me, it doesn't even come close to the flip-flop over over 30 votes against firearm ownership (I'm talking outright bans, the 10,000 percent tax on ammunition), innumerable speeches where he says that no one should own a gun, and then speeches during the election where he says it's ok to own certain guns, and goes out and kills ducks.


I would defy you to find just one speech where Kerry stated that "no one should own a gun". Just one. He was preached what he calls "putting reasonable restraints" on ownership, and what those restraints should be is a whole other debate, but he has never called for a ban.

BTW, and along the same lines: remember Bush's election promise to renew the assault weapon ban? what ever happened to that?

Oh right.

Oh, and we'll forget about that war trophy he brought back from the Vietnam War. Even if it's so much as a bolt-action rifle, it's a BATF violation and a violation of military regulations to have brought it back. But I guess that when he became Senator, and they re-wrote the paperwork on his less than honorable discharge, they went ahead and covered the paperwork for that old rifle as well.

But I'm sure that he'd be glad to put anyone else behind bars for doing the same thing.

and several members of this administration took trophies - illegaly - from Ground Zero, and Bush has in his possession the pistol that Hussein was captured with, which would be the exact same violation as you note of Kerry's.

How 'bout we put 'em both in jail and call for a new election?

Kerry didn't propose any gun ban legislation himself - but he did support legislation that never made it to the floor that was proposed by Schumer, Feinstein, and others that would have resulted in gun bans.

He also voted for the assault weapons ban, which is a gun ban.

Technically, the President, as Commander in Chief, can order anything he likes - such as Saddam's gun. So that's legal. I don't think that's fair, but laws are neither fair nor follow common sense.

Kerry, as an ordinary veteran, coming home with a weapon, has been illegal since the mid-1950s.

Technically, it looks pretty simple to me. But, seeing as he didn't get the same kind of prompt Honorable Discharge that most people seemed to get, and had to get special treatment as a result of being elected, I'm sure he has the paperwork for the weapon - somewhere.

It's good to know that he thinks he's entitled to own an SKS assault rifle with a folding bayonet, but that no one else should.

You mean grow a set of balls and come BACK to the right wing.
I'm still trying to imagine what George Bush would look like with a right wing and a set of hairy pendulous balls.
Ewww...*Shudder*

Of course, attack the person instead of the ideal. Bush goes back on his campaign promises, but it's perfectly OK because some other politician would have done it, too.
Unfortunately that's what the Right wing element does best, especially when faced with an unpalatable truth.

It's good to know that he thinks he's entitled to own an SKS assault rifle with a folding bayonet, but that no one else should.

To do this sort of flip-flop, you would have to combine a video of George Bush speaking out against gays, and then have a White House intern (a gay young man) come forward with a stained blue suit.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if there is any fallout on the next Republican nominee in '08 if they once again try to promise movement on "values" as part of their campaign. Eventually the religious right is going to get tired of empty promises.

The problem is that everyone forgets. Or nearly everyone anyway. This is a typical story of pre election promise not meeting post election action. It happens with every election, anywhere in the world, for any position.

Can this really be surprising for a man who ran on an isolationist ticket the first time and then, even in his first inagural speech, immediately started touting the need for the US to police the world?

I think the difference here is that Kerry has a voting record.

If you have a voting record as a politician, you're going to have a record as a flip-flopper - far more times than any executive.

So as a matter of just counting, I bet it's easy - incredibly easy - to paint Kerry as an inveterate flip-flopper who has done it more times than he can count or remember.

As an executive, Bush probably has flip-flopped quite a bit - but not nearly as much as Kerry - in fact, I bet it's one or two orders of magnitude less.

But not because of any character difference. It's the nature of each job.

A legislator will always be a much greater flip-flopper than a governor or President.

Of course, this case is also much more clear-cut. In any legislation, there is much more involved than one issue. Even in a budget, people slip in idiotic little tack-ons. Thus, it was easy for someone to say "Kerry voted against X!" when, in fact, the bill in question had 100 things and X was just one of them. This is obviously a single issue, and an obvious change in approach to it.

One of these days, I'm going to get into Congress and introduce a bill called the "Puppies are Cute" bill. It is going to say point-blank that the nation thinks puppies are cute. It is also going to require Americans to slaughter their first-born child if the child is born on a Tuesday. Then, when someone runs against me, I can say "YOU VOTED AGAINST THE PUPPIES!"

One of these days, I'm going to get into Congress and introduce a bill called the "Puppies are Cute" bill. It is going to say point-blank that the nation thinks puppies are cute. It is also going to require Americans to slaughter their first-born child if the child is born on a Tuesday. Then, when someone runs against me, I can say "YOU VOTED AGAINST THE PUPPIES!"

Not a good idea. They'll probably pass it. No one read the whole Patriot Act, remember? You could have put the first-born child thing in there, and whoa Nellie!

While he may not be proposing such an amendment right now, he may be just preserving his political capital to spend on the other items on his plate.

He may still propose such an amendment. Before people usually go through with such actions, they usually caucus in the halls to see how many votes they're going to get - or how many deals they'll have to make to get those votes.

Just the threat of such an amendment, and the bans that were enacted by stunning majorities in eleven states, seems, for the moment, to have stopped gay marriage in its tracks.

It may be that such an amendment will come up later in his term. In the meantime, other issues may well get more attention.

If you consider that fixing Social Security (regardless of how you end up doing it, it needs some work - and would benefit far more people than any "gay marriage" amendment) is a good idea (even if you don't agree with Bush's plan), then the flip-flop isn't a bad thing. And I'm speaking as a conservative.

First, that was a scare tactic. SS will last at least untiul 2050 with full benefits. Even with reduced benefits it will last 20 or more years after that. Then maybe you will se a change.

However, the change/plan the President wants won't show a possible good change till 2080 (until than be a major drain on ecomony/debt). It won't be very useful to the vast majority. Infact, the elderly won't be as supported by the workers in this system because the elderly won't have the time. Currently the current workers pay for the elderly.

Only a second-term President could even raise the issue of Social Security, because it's the third rail of politics. In order to get someone to pass some legislation to help the upcoming retirees, he may be making a sacrifice - all of his remaining political capital. Sounds like a good idea to me. And it makes his election strategy look that much smarter than Kerry's.

No, he still looks dumber to me compared to Kerry.

So it makes Bush look smarter than Kerry to me - again.

To me, it doesn't even come close to the flip-flop over over 30 votes against firearm ownership (I'm talking outright bans, the 10,000 percent tax on ammunition), innumerable speeches where he says that no one should own a gun, and then speeches during the election where he says it's ok to own certain guns, and goes out and kills ducks.

Nope, just you again.
Its okay to own certain guns but ban the illegal assualt weapons. there no flip-flop. He used a legal weapon to hunt (he is a hunter). He never said no one should own a gun, but restrictions are in place for a reason (felons can't for example).

Oh, and we'll forget about that war trophy he brought back from the Vietnam War. Even if it's so much as a bolt-action rifle, it's a BATF violation and a violation of military regulations to have brought it back. But I guess that when he became Senator, and they re-wrote the paperwork on his less than honorable discharge, they went ahead and covered the paperwork for that old rifle as well.

Actually unused weaponry isn't illegal. You can't use it, but as long as its unused its okay.

But I'm sure that he'd be glad to put anyone else behind bars for doing the same thing.
Only if they USE it.

Claiming you will fight for something to get elected and then backing off after the election IS hypocricy.


Not necessarily. As suggested in the article, Bush might simply be taking the prudent course of not forcing such a divisive issue on a still unfriendly congress. This isn't 'save the whales' legislation, it's a constitutional amendment you need a bit more support than simple partisan politics can provide. He's going to have to time his push very well. Even if it were hypocrisy, it's no different than previous president's. On the campaign trail the president's enter an ideal realm of values and issues. When they get elected they have to reconcile this perfect world with the real, less-compromising one in Washington. You haven't even mentioned the court case outcomes which many are waiting on and the great deal of influence they may have on this. Bush's move of not pushing, at least for now, seems the smart one.


No it doesn't. It says in plain English regarding Bush's current position that "It was not articulated that way in the campaign," Perkins complained"

Which, paraphrased, suggests that either Perkins misinterpreted the articulation during the campaign trail, or that the Bush administration missed in the delivery of such articulation. Either way, I think mis-articualtion fits.


Bush made MANY statements on this issue during the campaign, none of which match his current position. Perkins' is stating in a manner to avoid directly calling Bush a liar that Bush has changed his position. He is clearly NOT trying to say that Bush was unclear in how he presented his intentions before. (emphasis added)

And what, exactly, points you towards that conclusion? Perhaps I've missed something. But perhaps not.

Well his change in position has just come out. Give it time. But the social right (to differentiate from the vanilla catch-all definition of "conservatives") certainly backed him to the hilt based on certain positions that he presented. Backing off of those position may cause a feeling of betrayal within that group that could have a detrimental effect in '08 if they distrust the Republicans to follow through for them. They will never vote Democrat, but they might just stay home. And that could swing a few states back to the Democrats.

True, it may cause a feeling of betrayal. However, many factors for '08 have yet to be determined. It's unclear how the court cases will turn out. It's yet to be seen how state-by-state legislation will end up. We have no clue who will be running on the republican ticket. These all have tremendous influence on how much the social right clings to a new republican candidate.

Well, when you try and twist the words of the very person doing the complaining about the flip-flop as being a voice in opposition to the very viewpoint that the story ios about - I think your analysis is far more disingenuous than mine!

Once again, you're not letting me know how you're making these conclusions. I jave no idea wherein I've "twisted your words". For all anyone knows you're just in tizzy because I appear to be "on the opposite side of the fence" and you need someone to accuse of evildoing. It might be okay for you to sit there and think to yourself "Bush is a loser because this and this and this". But when you try to convince others you can't just say "Bush is a loser". You seem to have a problem with jumping to conclusions or, at least, appearing to do so. Perhaps if you'd explain your reasonings and issues more this wouldn't be the case.

Where, to be direct, have I twisted your words?

And if you think pissing off a portion of your base, and incidentally a portion of your base that consistently has had high voter turnout for your party - well then that is your right. He has not even been innaugurated yet for his second term. He has four more years to either keep these people enthusiastic about the party for the next candidate, or to disapoint them. Frankly, I don't think he is off to a good start.

And neither do I. I don't think Bush's hesitation will be interpreted well by the social right unless he acts definitively later in his term (which depends a lot on court cases and congressional elections). I think whoever runs the Republican ticket in 2008 isn't going to have nearly the Evangelical base that Bush did, either because they won't be evangelical, or because evangelicals are disappointed by the lack of "god-like" moves they expect Bush to make here (even if Bush pushed very strongly to get the socially conservative views passed, I doubt they'd match the seemingly messianic expectations the religious right have). To win, I feel the Republican '08er may have to be a social and economic moderate pitted up against a social and economic liberal. This likely won't be that case after all the liberal smears on Kerry in '04.

Actually unused weaponry isn't illegal. You can't use it, but as long as its unused its okay.

Only if they USE it.

Wrong. My wife is a BATF agent. Even an unusable "piece" of a weapon is considered "possession of a weapon" by the BATF. People have gone to jail for 20 years for possession of a single piece of metal the size of a dime.

As another example of how being a powerful Democrat can get you a pass with your gun law violation, I submit Sarah Brady, who made a strawman purchase for her son. She illegally purchased a rifle for her son.

It's quite the talk around the shop at the BATF. They were told to drop the whole thing, and let her son keep the rifle.

Guess what, he won't ban abortion either. The Republicans, (the real ones, not the unwashed Yahoos that spit venom on this forum) are interested in one thing, money. Lots and Lots of money.

If they did away with their red herrings, what on earth would they use to keep their right wing voter block in line.
Aren't Senate and House Dems on average 40% richer than the republicans?

Which, paraphrased, suggests that either Perkins misinterpreted the articulation during the campaign trail, or that the Bush administration missed in the delivery of such articulation. Either way, I think mis-articualtion fits.



Frankly, I think that you are the only one here that takes that reading from the quote. You are hinting with this that the Bush Campaign never clearly articulated an interest in pushing the issue of banning gay marriages as part of it's campaign platform, or that if Perkins feels that Bush said so then it is either Perkin's error or that the campaign was unclear on this issue..


That is clearly a disingenuous thing to be trying to say, and an extremely poor interpretation of what Perkins was obviously saying.

Kerry didn't propose any gun ban legislation himself - but he did support legislation that never made it to the floor that was proposed by Schumer, Feinstein, and others that would have resulted in gun bans.

He also voted for the assault weapons ban, which is a gun ban.


And Bush's first platform was in clear support of the asault weapons ban also.

But neither of those statements come anywhere close to your inital statement which was that Kerry repeately mad "speeches where he says that no one should own a gun, "

That sir - was pure, unadulterated bullshit. Something I seem to keep catching you at.

Technically, the President, as Commander in Chief, can order anything he likes - such as Saddam's gun. So that's legal. I don't think that's fair, but laws are neither fair nor follow common sense.


Sorry, no. The President is NOT above the law, as both Nixon and Clinton discovered.

Kerry, as an ordinary veteran, coming home with a weapon, has been illegal since the mid-1950s.


And if you intend to prosecute every vet who did then you best start building a shitload of new prisons.

It's good to know that he thinks he's entitled to own an SKS assault rifle with a folding bayonet, but that no one else should.

The assault rifle ban was not retroactive was it?

And when did this thread become about Kerry?


Please go hijack somebody elses thread.

Wrong. My wife is a BATF agent. Even an unusable "piece" of a weapon is considered "possession of a weapon" by the BATF. People have gone to jail for 20 years for possession of a single piece of metal the size of a dime.

As another example of how being a powerful Democrat can get you a pass with your gun law violation, I submit Sarah Brady, who made a strawman purchase for her son. She illegally purchased a rifle for her son.

It's quite the talk around the shop at the BATF. They were told to drop the whole thing, and let her son keep the rifle.


So, what you are saying is that there is a Republican controlled White House, Republican Controlled Senate, Republican controlled Congress, and a fairly conservative Supreme Court, .... but it's the Democrats with all the power to circumvent a bureau that reports directly to John Ashcroft?


LMFAO!

Best one I've heard in a long time John.

Thanks.

The assault rifle ban was not retroactive was it?


If it's about Bush flip-flop, then it's obviously about Kerry flip-flop.

The ban is retroactive if it's not a legally manufactured or legally imported firearm. And they did prevent thousands of veterans from bringing guns home (including myself), and imprisoned more for trying. I personally know of two who are still in Leavenworth for making it to the US with parts - not entire weapons - but a handful of parts.

As I said before, it's much easier to count flip-flops for a Senator than a President or Governor. According to VoteMatch, Kerry is, by the definition of his voting record, strongly opposed to gun ownership. Rather than try to believe what comes out of a politician's mouth, I'd rather go with their voting record.

Notice that the last two Democratic Presidents were Governors? It seems to help the run for office - there's a skimpier record to throw in your face. If you're a Senator, they'll have an encyclopedia of flip-flop to bury you in.

Rove was pretty smart.

Frankly, I think that you are the only one here that takes that reading from the quote. You are hinting with this that the Bush Campaign never articulated an interest in pushing the issue of banning gay marriages as part of it's campaign platform.

No, I am not at all. I never said that the Bush administration didn't in the slightest not articulate an interest in pushing the issue of banning gay marriage. The Perkins quote is him saying that there seems to be an incongruity between what he interpreted on the campaign trail and what the Bush administration is doing right now. If there's a miscommunication, it could either be the Bush administration giving the wrong message (intentionally or unintentionally--as a political group, probably intentionally), or the general public misinterpreting the message.

I am not at all trying to deny the focus Bush placed on gay marriage. However, I'm not sure that he, in this emphasis, led supporters to believe he'd act with super-logical quickness and rash timing. Don't put words in my mouth. If you don't understand what I'm saying, try asking me rather than labeling me as "disingenuous", or a poor interpreter of quotes. I'm not sure I'd be throwing stones about interpretation if I lived in the glass house you do, anyway.

That is clearly...an extremely poor interpretation of what Perkins was obviously saying.

Once again, it may be obvious to you, but until you guide me to how this conclusion is made, I don't recognize it as the knowledge divine you seem to.

Guess what, he won't ban abortion either. The Republicans, (the real ones, not the unwashed Yahoos that spit venom on this forum) are interested in one thing, money. Lots and Lots of money.

If they did away with their red herrings, what on earth would they use to keep their right wing voter block in line.
BINGO
i dont know why everyone let this post just go by as if the writer were foolish

the republicans will NEVER ban gay marriage, ban abortion, put prayer in schools etc etc etc

because they arent INTERESTED in any of those things. they talk big to get the votes of the religious right but if they DID any of them, what would they run on next time?

if the religious right had no "moral" issues they might start voting on ECONOMIC issues and then where would the republicans be?

Well, all your base are ours anyway, so what's that all about, eh? :D

If it's about Bush flip-flop, then it's obviously about Kerry flip-flop.


Oddly enough - most people have managed to figure out that those are two diferent things. That it is possible to discuss distinct statements by completely diferent people as autonomous events.

It's pretty simple really. Note the spelling:

B-U-S-H
K-E-R-R-Y

See! They're different.

And oddly enough, you ARE allowed to bring up one without the other.



As I said before, it's much easier to count flip-flops for a Senator than a President or Governor. According to VoteMatch, Kerry is, by the definition of his voting record, strongly opposed to gun ownership. Rather than try to believe what comes out of a politician's mouth, I'd rather go with their voting record.

Notice that the last two Democratic Presidents were Governors? It seems to help the run for office - there's a skimpier record to throw in your face. If you're a Senator, they'll have an encyclopedia of flip-flop to bury you in.



MAke up your mind would you. First you state that your position is based on statements you attribute to Kerry that were never made. Then you claim that it doesn't matter what he said because it's the votes that count. And finally you point out that all voting records show inconsistencies for long-term senators, which rather makes the voting record a suspect record of actual opinions too.


Hell, why are we talking about either Kerry of Bush as flip-floppers? You manage to contradict yourself multiple times in a single statement let alone having to dredge up a previous record.


Congratulations!


You, sir, are the master of flip-flops! We all bow down to honour your incredible affinity for vaccilation!



BTW: The door to where you can collect your prize is thataway =====>

Oh, I can flip-flop all I like. I'm not running for President or Senator.

I expect politicians to do it. It's just on what issues that generally bothers me.

There are a few issues on which a politician must stand with absolute rigidity for me. Otherwise, I don't vote for them. If that means I don't vote for either choice, then that's my non-vote. But on other issues, I'm flexible.

I'm sure that if you lined up a lot of voters, and asked who they voted for over the years, and then went back and tried to see what positions those candidates took, there whole nation would sound like a ship's deck of recently netted fish.

politicians float ideas or positions to gauge public reaction. until action is taken its all rhetoric.

yes, mr moral values once again seemingly won't walk the walk after talking the talk....

.
You should really rename these threads "Zeppy's daily sad little attempt to tear down the greatest country in the world because of some sad little envy issue he never worked out in his frozen baby seal clubbing childhood thread...Get it while it's hot."

You should really rename these threads "Zeppy's daily sad little attempt to tear down the greatest country in the world because of some sad little envy issue he never worked out in his frozen baby seal clubbing childhood thread...Get it while it's hot."

Boo hoo, someone dared to criticize America. Greatest country in the world? Don't make me giggle a lot.

*shrug* Anyway, I won't complain if he doesn't ban gay marriage. I'd be kinda pleased. Wouldn't be surprised if it happened though...

I could have told you this was an election year maneuver. Such a amendment, if passed, would create an exodus of smart, productive gays, much like what happened to the Huegonots in France under Louis XIV. This was designed to fail, so that the evangelical right would rally to electing Bush (there was a low turnout of them in 2000). I think it also generated public hostility to judges, soothing Bush's reshaping of the Federal bench.

Actually unused weaponry isn't illegal. You can't use it, but as long as its unused its okay.

Incorrect. Any weapons authorized to be brought back from a combat zone ( and there are damned few authorized! ) must have the barrel plugged, the firing pin removed, and ( I think ) the trigger mechanism disabled.