Kerry...

[Galant]

Click here and then go to the 'Windsurfing' video.

Brilliant.

[IBM]

I've given up hope...I just wish they'd found someone halfway decent to run against Bush....

Hell, how much of an advantage does someone need to beat Bush, and Kerry's still going to loose...

[GreenPiggy]

mmm...I guess everything on the GeorgeWBush.com website MUST be fair and balanced.

[nichomach]

Me, I rather like http://www.georgewbush.org/

[Galant]

'Fair and balanced'? I suppose that's why Kerry changes his mind so often. It's unfair and not balanced to only hold one point of view for any length of time. The guy treats his opinions like Britney does marriage!

If you haven't already, check out the other new video on the website, just above the windsurfing one.

[GreenPiggy]

Apologies for my blatant plagiarising but i couldn't be bothered to paraphrase the lot:

One of the most persistent arguments against Kerry from the Bush camp is his “flip-flop” attitude regarding every issue known to man. Indeed, for a person to change his stance on important issues in order to win an election would make him a verifiable, grade-A douchebag. The website linked to above contains a very long and detailed list, no doubt the hard work of two dozen political science undergrads looking to justify their existence. I read perhaps the first two thirds and skimmed the rest, because, as you're sure to notice, patterns begin forming very quickly. Some of the deception attempts are clever, even downright sneaky. Others are less well disguised. Let's take a look at a few of the ploys used by this page:

Observe the liberal usage of paraphrasing. In bending words to fit situations, the “...” is mans best friend. Perhaps it's that... excluding... certain pieces... [makes] excerpts more... convincing. Granted, it could be the case that these are earnest summaries of what was said, but it seems that many times the ellipsis is heading off in a different direction (Affirmative Action, Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn, Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees, Federal Health Ben efits, Burma Sanctions, 1991 Iraq War Coalition). Also, there are abundant examples of paraphrasing not involving our three-dotted friend that are clearly quotes taken far out of context, or that have a misleading title that does not at all match the quote listed below (Iraq War, Gay Marriage Amendment, Attacking President During Time of War, Death Penalty for Terrorists, Cuba Sanctions, Health Coverage, Ballistic Missile Defense).

Additionally, there are a number of “flip-flops” that do not appear to be “flip-flops” at all. At best, they are minor shifts in opinion, and some of them are not even shifts, but two different opinions about two separate issues (Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve, War on Terror, Military Experience as Credential For Public Office, Medical Marijuana, Cuba Sanctions, Gay Marriage Amendment, Both Sides on the First Gulf War).

Of all these accusations, there are a few I would hope that John Kerry and any sensible person would “flip-flop” over, given events that have transpired since the original quote and the more recent one. For starters, I am happy that Kerry and many others are actively trying to do away with the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously. Shortly following 9/11, the general sentiment around America was a desire to hunt down terrorists at all costs, even at the expense of a violation of personal privacy. Times have changed between then and now, and while the Patriot Act may have served its purpose in fighting terrorism, it's now being abused for non-terrorism causes, and that needs to stop. Also among notable “I would'da changed my mind too” scenarios:
Death Penalty for Terrorists (One quote was taken before 9/11, the other was taken after)
No Child Left Behind (Kerry voted for this act, and now thanks to gross mishandling by the Bush administration, it is largely a failure... even Republicans disapprove of how Bush has handled No Child Left Behind)
NAFTA (Originally voting for this in 1993, after witnessing its less-than-stellar outcome, Kerry has expressed regret ten years later)
Leaving Abortion Up to the States (Originally for this approach in 1972, Kerry changed his stance in 1985. I think 13 years is a fair time to re-evaluate one’s position.)
Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees (With the original quote from 1986, I think it’s fair to slightly change one’s position over the course of almost two decades.)

This is not even to mention the numerous “flip-flops” that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right?

[GreenPiggy]

I'm also sure that there are some far more 'hilarious' ads regarding Mr Bush I could roll out if needs be Galant.

[Galant]

The thing is it's not just the Bush admin. It's everywhere. John Kerry either contradicts himself or changes his mind more often than I eat hot dinners.

[GreenPiggy]

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com...lip-flops.html

Why don't you try saying what is so good about Bush rather than stump up with the standard republican character assassination tactic

[Galant]

Really?

I thought that was the usual democrat line. It certainly has been this time. All we've heard is how bad Bush has been. It's all Kerry has been getting at - apart from how he's the big war hero.

The whole Kerry campagin can be summed up as: Bush has gone way, way out of line, he's no good - so pick me and I'll make it better.

Don't recall when he said how he was going to do that. I mean I honestly have no idea what Kerry's action plan is - I know lots of pointless information about his Vietnam service, but nothing about what he actually plans to do.

Look, whatever you think of BUsh the point is that Kerry was the wrong choice for democratic candidate and his campaign is a complete flop. He inspires no confidence and gives no clear vision for where he wants the country to go.

Or am I wrong about that?

[GreenPiggy]

Actually yes,
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Perhaps the reason you don't know about any of kerry's policies is that you get your campaign info from GeorgeWBush.com
I know precious little of what Bush intends to do apart from some fuzzy rubbish about an ownership society. All I have ever heard him say is "We have made America safer by getting rid of Saddam Hussein from eyerack" he never deviates from the stump speech. ever.

[Galant]

I see you read the Washington Post sir. Nice of you to cite it.

I haven't seen those figures so I wont dispute them, but I will say this. Living here in the USA I get to see the commercials first hand and seeing all the coverage of the campaign war I think you'd be surprised with the negativity that comes out from Kerry.

I wont deny the the Bush campaign attacks Kerry - my initial post posted a link to just that type of commercial - however, Bush has four years of activity to stand upon with regards to how he operates - Kerry has nothing. His voting record puts him up as the #1 most liberal senator and his running mate at #4. But whereas Bush can show his record as President whilst making attacks on the challenger, it seems that ALL Kerry is doing is making attacks. He puts nothing forward with regards to his plans for the War on Terror or anything else.

PS - For the record I am not a regular visitor to the Bush website, I only went there to redirect to the commercial. That was I think only the second time I'v e visited the site.

Going into this election a voter can elect or reject Bush on his past record as president, and the way John Kerry is going, they can elect or reject him - on Bush's record. Stupid tactic. It says nothing about him - when really, that's what the election is all about. It's about putting someone in - not taking someone out.

[GreenPiggy]

Just because I cited the Washington Post does not make it wrong. It's a hell of a lot more reliable than "I live in the states so I know"
The national journal voting method which you bring up has also been discredited and they are changing the way they gather their information for their next survey.
Lets take a look at Kerry's voting record for a minute:
Kerry -- in 2002 -- voted against the Bush tax cuts; for campaign finance reform; against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; against a bill barring homosexuals in the Boy Scouts; for overseas military abortions; and for money to fund hate-crime prosecutions
Real commie pinko liberal stuff in there I must admit.

John Kerry has said plenty on all issues affecting the American people.
I ask you again, why does Bush deserve support. What is so good about his 2nd term manifesto?

[nichomach]

From Scott Adams:
"The biggest issue this election is something called flip-flopping, and all candidates are accused of doing it. A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor. When presidents do it, it’s called leadership, and frankly, we can’t get enough of it."