DescentBB

mod note: This was split from the RNC highlights thread, because it's worthy of a topic of its own. -Lothar

The flip flopping isn't as bad as it looks, but I'll admit it's there. However, consider the strength of character to realize you made a mistake and act on it, as opposed to the supposedly desirable characteristic of deciciveness, which implies continuing along a certain course, even when it's widely recognized as a mistake.

well if the guys make that many mistakes that he needs to change his position that many time. should he really be in charge?. theres more to him than just voting for things before he votes against things.
I constantly hear about the GOP being the party of hate. well it seems to me that the Democrats have the market on that one. they equate Bush to HITLER???? how dare they My God ppl do they even realize who hitler was??? the dems say Bush should be ashamed of himself for letting the SBV ads to run. I say they should hang thier heads in shame for even implying that Bush if Hitler. as the president said himself you may not agree with the stand he takes on issues. but at least he take a stand and doesnt wet his finger and stick it in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing before he votes




heres a list of where kerry flip flopped on the issues

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediace ... px?ID=2439

Wow, that site presents a damning indictment indeed! I count therein 37 flip-flops on the part of Kerry!

Just for kicks let's see if Bush ever flip-flopped on any issues. Here's a few:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/s ... H&b=118263

Oh, no! Bush only flip-flopped 30 times! That's 7 less flip-flops than Kerry! There can be no doubt that Kerry is a flip-flopper of monumental proportions and that Bush is the most consistent, decisive, and honest politician working today!

Or maybe all this flip-flopping by both candidates isn't as bad as it looks? Maybe it's mostly spin created by the opposition? This site defends, sometimes very effectively and sometimes very thinly, each of the flip-flop allegations made by Bush against Kerry; in many cases there's actually no flip-flop at all!

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/20 ... flops.html

Oh, I forgot, we all made up our minds long ago and nobody will actually objectively read or research anything that is contrary to their viewpoint.


Regarding the Hitler bit, I'm assuming you're referring to the famous moveon.org Hitler advertisement. There's no doubt that was a low blow, but fortunately moveon.org is no more associated with the official Democratic party than the Swift Boaties are associated with the official Republican party. So unless you're referring to another incident, "the democrats" never likened Bush to Hitler, just as "the republicans" never questioned Kerry's war record. This is of course completely official, since the republican party has chastised the Swifties and the democratic party has chastised the moveoners.


Readers will please note the irony that drips from every sentence in this post. I prefer not to use emoticons.

Geng, udaman
Talk about bringing some fresh air to this place!

bwahahaha @ geng!

WOOP!

no... you don't get it G.

these are 2 rich white men who both attended yale university and belong to the skull and cross bones secret society. we are debating real issues on the dbb.... not the fact that there is no difference between the 2 fascist swines.

stupid idiots... have a novel to write about the subject.

I have to say genghis, you really owned on this one. Thank you!

I've been sick of hearing about how Kerry is a flip flopper. Has the national IQ dropped that low? Do we forget history that fast? POLITICIANS are flip floppers. GW included. There's plenty GW has FF on, but I'm sure you republicans will ego defend those till infinity.

At the risk of looking like I'm ego-defending, let me say that in my view, all of this stinks to me like politicking. The question isn't how many times you change your views, but what views you change and why.

Changing views in response to changing times, new information, or more thought and experience is healthy. I have done it many times--it's evidence of a wisdom and open-mindedness, and no less so in politicians.

Changing core views is evidence of major intellectual upheaval, which is healthy from time to time; changing incidental views is evidence of intellectual growth, and is something that should be constantly happening.

On the other hand, frequently and ill-reasoned changes of view (and more so the more central to your beliefs the views are) bespeak an intellectual frailty if they're sincere, and a two-facedness if they aren't. Both of those are unhealthy, and in a politician, they mean the person can't really be trusted to champion the view.

To illustrate, the biggest flip-flop Kerry is criticized on is his service in Vietnam and later antiwar activities. There are respecable and disrespectable ways that could have come about. His reasoning might go like this:

Imaginary John Kerry wrote:While I was in Vietnam, I saw the troops doing some things that disturbed me. But already being in the midst of a war, I didn't waver; I fulfilled my duty and fought my best for my country. When I came back, I decided that based on what I'd seen, the war itself was unjust, so I protested against it, and told the truth the best I was able to. Now as I look back so many years later, I am at peace with my service; I still think the war was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that I served my country with honor. I think I can still be proud of that.

On the other hand, it might go like this:

Imaginary John Kerry wrote:I served in Vietnam because I wanted to establish myself as a patriot and a war hero for my later political expliots. So I went over there, earned as many medals as I could as fast as I could, and got out as soon as I could. When I came back, the political anti-war sentiment was strong, and my veteran status stood me in good stead to be very popular as I argued against the war. Nowadays, the military is in political fashion again, so I can use my Vietnam experience to paint myself as a proud, military man.

One of those is totally respectable. One is totally repulsive. One shows decency and growth, and the other shows dishonesty and treachery. There may be other narratives as well--neither of these may be very close to the truth. What's the real John Kerry like? What made him change his mind--or are these apparent contradictions part of a larger, complex, cohesive view? At best I can try to guess from what he says, how he acts, and so forth; so can you. But the sheer occurance of a change of views--even one so obviously important as Kerry's views on Vietnam are to him--is not meaningful. It's not the what, it's the why.

Likewise, the most criticized flop-flop of Bush's has been on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What were his reasons? They may have been like this:

Imaginary George W. Bush wrote:Just after 9/11, I and everyone else knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction--all the intelligence pointed that way. Saddam's open hostility meant terrorists would get their hands on them sooner or later, and waking up to a mushroom cloud over LA is not a risk I'm willing to take. I knew then that such a threat was no longer tolerable, that we had waited too long to finish what we started with Saddam. So I went to congress and sought permission to declare war, and having gained it, invaded Iraq. Now, a year or so later, the weapons I thought he had haven't turned up, other than a single gas-loaded shell here and an empty warhead there--hardly the destructive power I expected. Are they buried underground somewhere? Smuggled across a border? Never existed, and Saddam was bluffing? I may never know. Regaurdless, given his ambitions and propensities, I know he would have never given up until he obtained them. I am confident I did the right thing.

Or it may have gone like this:

Imaginary George W. Bush wrote:I'd always wanted to go to war with Iraq. That sort of thing plays well with my conservative base--it'd be a pushover victory, and I'd come out looking like a glorious war president. It'd help the economy, too. I knew Iraq would be a threat when it had weapons of mass destruction, and had aspirations to get them, but hadn't achieved those aspirations yet. Nonetheless, I got the intelligence guys to crank out a lot of information that said Iraq probably did have those weapons, and I hyped it enough to scare the nation into going to war. Now that the war is over, I see I miscalculated--the people have longer memories than I thought they would, and the absence of the weapons bothers them. Nonetheless, the best I can do is try to feign that I was mistaken.

One of these is respectable--a rational man doing the best he can do. And one is despicable. Again, neither of these narratives may be right--what does the real George W. Bush think? I can do my best to glean things from what he's said and how he's acted; sometimes people tell you straight up what they think, and then again sometimes they lie. But once again, we have a flip flop on an obviously important issue--and once again the "why" matters so much more than the "what."

Long lists of who's flip-flopped on what, without any chance for the person in question to explain their views, are often misleading and certainly not helpful. Sometimes what they list as flip flops aren't even propery changes of view. Consider item #30 on the list Genghis linked to:

Bush Flip Flop site wrote:Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

â?¦Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

Simply clicking the links and reading the full context reveals clearly non-conflicting statements:

George W. Bush, in April 2004, wrote:We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.

And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while -- and, therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes, and leave behind a better foundation for Presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other Presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.

One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can. That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology. A free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment, and see to it that that child gets an education.

George W. Bush, in August 2000, wrote:Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So Iâ??m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I donâ??t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world â?? let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. Iâ??m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness and must continue to lead. To find Al-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring â??em to justice â?? we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaedaas we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, â??You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal democracy.â?? I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.

Superficially contradictory, these two statements are both representations of the same view that the ultimate strategy in the war on terror is culture change--the spread of liberty and democracy. Whatever he might have meant by "I don't think you can win..." he clearly didn't mean he thought the war was hopeless, since he goes on to outline the strategy for victory. Did he mean winning was uncertain? Or that it couldn't be done in four years? Or that it was Muslims, not us, that would win it for themselves? Hard to say. But painting these two pieces as a flip flop is certainly misleading, and an example of poor interpretation.

I tried to find an example in Cuda's "Kerry flip flops" site that was as clearly misleading as the above, and I must admit I couldn't find one. Tell your own stories about that--the left might say that's my bias showing through, and the right might say that's because those flip flops really -are- suspicious in nature. Ah well, what can I say? I do try to keep these things evenhanded, and I really couldn't find anything.

I did find some things that seemed cheap, though. Quoting statements Kerry made in 1986 and 2003--*SEVENTEEN* years apart--on such a historically active issue as selecting supreme court justices in the context of supporting abortion, for example. Seventeen years is -plenty- of time to revise an opinion on a tangential piece of a historically active and important topic. Citing that as an example of a flip flop defintely leans in the "baloney" direction.

Perhaps it will well illustrate the difference to note that both sites list the candidates as flip flopping on the same issue, though to differing degrees and in differing ways.

Kerry Flip Flops Site wrote:In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter â??Urgingâ?

would anybody be offended / think myself lazy and ignorant if i responded with the truth that is:

tl, dr

A quick note on the moveon.org Bush=Hitler videos. There were two, I think. I never saw them. They were submitted along with over 1000 others for their "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest for which the winning submission would be aired by moveon.org's PAC. If I remember correctly, the video that actually made it onto TV was the one with all the kids working to pay off the debt Bush is leaving them. The Bush=Hitler videos were screened out by moveon.org.

In a nutshell, the Bush=Hilter videos were akin to Rican whipping up a video on his iMac, and sending it in for a contest only to have it rejected for the contest.

I like how drakona points out that if Kerry changes stance it's flip flopping, if Bush changes stances it's ok because it is a simple change in heart right?

It's called political bias.
I have trouble with your reply drak because of all the "Imaginary" lines where you put words in the mouths of candidates. I don't know what to say to you, other than it just sounds really biased. Kerry bad, Bush good. Your political ideology manifested into candidate evaluations.

EDIT:
Drak said: " Birds, you may take the cynical view that politicians are always liars, willing to change views to appease voters. I can't believe that--it just doesn't match my observations of the political world. "

Hmm, I don't think they are always liars. I think they are people who geniunely think what they are doing is right. This includes sometimes telling lies that are for the greater good (example: bush & Iraq - he probably thought their was WMDs, and used some questionable evidence as proof in good faith that his cause was right). It also includes changing some views in order to get elected because you will help the country overall. It also includes accepting sktechy campaign contributions because everyone else does it, and dishing out questionable support.

Also, you do realize that when you spout the Bush war on terror correction, you sound just like the Kerry supporters do explaining the so called Kerry flip flops--policy clarification. Seems from your mouth that Bush flip flops are moral changes within the bounds, but Kerry's aren't. Like Vietnam--why couldn't you be agains the vietnam war (especially someone who was in it firsthand) but also later see that another war is worth it, and that his service was admirable? His stance on Vietnam wasn't "all war is wrong" but rather "the vietnam war was wrong".

I mean, I consider serving in vietnam to be admirable. I respect Vietnam veterans. But I disagree with the war. I think that's Kerry's stance.

"Saying both candidates are corrupt doesn't automatically make you balanced; favoring one candidate doesn't automatically make you biased. In the end, I think a individual, rational evaluation of what the candidates have said is a better course than blind skeptecism -or- blind faith."

Agreed. I think we also have to admit that everyone has some sort of political bias. When we admit that, then we can really start delving into true discussion. I admit, I have bias against bush. If you'll admit you have bias for bush, we'll be situated much better to discuss. Not that our biases should ever be used as a catch all blame for our positions, rather that we can admit they exist and privately try to cope and get past them.

Zuruck and Birds,

You both need to re-read Drak's post. You really badly missed it if you think she was saying Bush flip-flopping is OK and Kerry flip-flopping isn't. You really badly missed it if you think her post said "Bush good, Kerry bad". You're reading your own biases about what you THINK she would say onto her post, rather than trying to understand what she actually said.

What she was saying was, essentially:

What matters isn't how many times you "flip-flop", but why. Because we don't know the "why" for most of the flip-flops on either list, we can't give a fair evaluation of most of them unless we listen to the candidates explain the "why". Neither list seemed to have any flip-flops that were undeniable -- both lists could probably be explained without much effort. So she doesn't take the "flip-flop" lists as evidence against either candidate. Yet you both somehow conclude she's saying "Bush good, Kerry bad"? Go back and read more carefully.

The only flip-flop she does evaluate is the gay marriage flip-flop, in order to illustrate that flip-flops can be very different from one another even on the same issue (thereby demonstrating the importance of getting the whole explanation.) I notice neither of you actually bothered addressing that part of her post, which is the only one that could be considered biased. Instead, you both ignored the vast majority of her post and called her "biased" without addressing anything. So, again I say: go back and read, and if you don't understand it ASK QUESTIONS instead of insulting her.

Seriously, Birds -- you put words into her mouth, rather than listening. "Seems from your mouth that Bush flip flops are moral changes within the bounds, but Kerry's aren't." Yet she drew no conclusion whatsoever about Bush flip-flops vs Kerry flip-flops. That's as far from her actual conclusion as you can get -- the conclusion she drew was that you have to "Listen to the explanations the candidates give, and decide if they jive well with their actions, and if they are honorable." So, I say it again: you didn't understand her post. Go back and read more carefully, and if you still don't get it, ask questions instead of spouting your "OMG Drak is biased" BS.

Also: what you claim is her spouting "the Bush war on terror correction" is actually her directly quoting the two articles that are linked to from the Bush flip-flop site. She's not quoting a Bush correction; she's directly quoting the ORIGINAL context of the quote when he said "I don't think you can win it". All you have to do is read the quote to notice that he clearly doesn't think the war is unwinnable.

"...You really badly missed it..."

is it me or does that sounds really familiar...

Oh dear. Birds, that post wasn't making the case for Bush or trodding down Kerry. I was putting forth a general principle under which to examine flip flops.

When I said it's the "why" not the "what" that matters, when I said certain flip-flops were manufactured or baloney, when I said the quality is more important than the quantity... I meant for both lists. Honestly. I mean that for the Bush, -and- the Kerry lists.

Evaluating such a list is like evaluating a ladder record. If I were trying to make the case that I was a good pilot, a list of 30 pilots I had beaten, by itself, wouldn't mean very much. Who were the pilots? Are they Birdseye, Nirvana, and Kufyit? Or are they my sister, my dad, and my next door neighbor? If I beat a good pilot, was he drunk at the time? Were we playing in some screwy fringe level? It all matters. Taking a few legendary pilots in solid battles means so much more than a sheer long list of defeated opponents.

Likewise, if I am trying to make the case that a politician is untrustworthy, a list of 30 flip flops, by itself, doesn't mean very much. Some flip flops aren't even bad things--they can be an indication of a healthy response to a changing world, or a growing mind. What were the flip flops? Were they on important issues, or are they tangential policy changes? How many years passed between the contradictory statements? Had the political situation changed in that time? Are the quotes even valid contradictions, or are they pieces of a larger, non-contradictory view? Did the flip-flopper sensibly explain himself? It all matters. A few really damning changes of position mean much, much more than a long list unexamined and unexplained.

That was all I was trying to say. Evaluating a flip flop is every bit as nuanced as evaluating a descent match; a list of them can mean as little or as much as a list of 30 matches. Sheer score-keeping is not only rediculous, it's misleading. There are principled distinctions that can be, and should be made, in any sort of discussion like this. It's not all about saying, "I like this guy, so I'll tell a flattering story." Examining the cohesiveness of the viewpoints, the importance of the issue, the timeframe, the explanation by the speaker, etc., can give a clear idea of how understandable a shift of position is.

Which is to say, I wasn't rebuking the folks who say Bush has flip flopped. I was rebuking the folks--talking about Bush -or- Kerry--who say "37 times! w00t, that's a lot! Take that!" As though the 37 meant something without an evaluation of the times.

I'm sure you already know all this, so I am surprised by your response. I did rebuke you for arguing the lists were evidence -both- candidates are untrustworthy (a move I labeled blind cycnicism, in opposition to the blind faith that accepts one list and discards the other), and perhaps that is unfair to you--I know your political views have been built slowly over time. But you come out of it thinking it's a biased defending of Bush? Seriously? I think maybe you read too hastily!

I'd invite you to read again what I said, if such proper-method-of-thought type posts interest you. (Though if they don't, I understand. While I like abstractly examining reason, I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea...) Though I did favor Bush in my examples, I will be the first to admit that there is room for disagreement in some places, and that an example or two may be misrepresentative, anyway. In fact, I explicity left room for disagreement in my later examples, and identifying the possibility of such room was the point of my first couple examples. I argued that there was room for disagreement over Kerry's relation to his service in Vietnam, putting forth two imaginary Kerries to explain possible views he might hold. You asked, "Why couldn't you be against the vietnam war ... but also later see that another war is worth it, and that his service was admirable?" My first possible Kerry said exactly that.

In any case, I thought the points I made were above and beyond the whole political debate, and though they set the groundwork for discussion that might favor one candidate or the other, I thought they were good, general, neutral principles. If such principles interest you, you might want to look again at what I said. (Or maybe not... I don't pretend it's the best think I've ever written...)

The discussion could probably be more fruitful, here. It may well be that Kerry's a flip flopper and Bush isn't, or that Kerry's list evidences nuances of view while Bush's are clearly lies. Not all lists are equal, after all, but the case has to be made. Rather than try to have everyone senselessly bicker over two long lists that nobody has the background to really analyze, it would probably be better those who feel the lists are valid would present one or two examples of flip flops that they feel are the strongest and most important examples from the lists. The WMD and war/anti-war examples I began with might be good places to start, due to their political importance and high publicity.

Drak,

I agree that the flip-flop lists aren't worth a hill of beans. My post was meant to poke people into realizing that, and force them to look deeper. Unfortunately, it can be very time consuming to dig up the real story, which is why this sound-byte campaigning is so effective.

You do a good job of demonstrating that further analysis shows that there is actually no Bush flip-flop on the "winnability" of the war. I agree that the different contexts of his two quotes made his view consistent.

It looks like the only time you pass any judgement on the candidates in your post is over the gay marriage issue. Perhaps this is what Zuruck and Birds keyed in on.

However, I'm not sure how many of the analyses debunking Kerry flip-flops you read. The one that addresses the gay marriage flip-flop makes sense to me. I haven't read the 2002 Constitutional Amendment that he came out against, but apparently it didn't just ban gay marriage but went further, endangering any other legal recognition of same sex relationships. An analog would be certain pro-life legislation, such as a law that ostensibly limits late term abortions but actually has wording or pork such that early term abortions would be limited as well. Kerry seems consistent in his moderate view that while gay marriage may be more than he's willing to support, he doesn't casually dismiss the idea that other forms of same sex relationships might deserve legal recognition.

*edit - I wrote the above while you were composing your last post.

*nod* It was a good poke. I'm glad you posted it--it makes the "Kerry flip flopped" people have to work to make the case and the distinctions, when there are two lists.

And that seems to me a fair explanation of the gay marriage thing. I hadn't heard it, and that makes the shift more reasonable than I painted it. My apologies about that--my point wasn't to give a fair analysis of each, really, but rather to illustrate shades of difference in flip flops, even on the same issue in the same time frame. I guess the analysis itself was probably sloppy. I'll be the first to admit I don't nearly have the background required to evaluate most of the things on those lists!

I think you should all be shot for using the word flip-flop like a bunch of cliche intake valves

I'm glad that Genghis finally pointed it out. Bush flopped on everything he campaigned on in 2000. Everything he talked about, carbon dioxide, social security, he changed plans once he got elected. He told people what they wanted to hear and then his cronies told him what to do. Kerry is no different. I'm sure he'll do the same thing when he's in office. They're politicians, which means they suck by nature. To think one candidate is more honest thant the other is lunacy. I know Kerry lies right to your face, but I still think he's less evil than the good ole outsider in the office.

Number of times flip-flop has been mentioned: 63.

yea wop, we talk about adult politics and we use the name of a sandal over and over again. flip flop, sounds so childish.