I was reading about the Kerry/Edwards interview on 60 Minutes, and after realizing just how bad Kerry can be at avoiding answering questions, I couldn’t help but be amused.
Even more amusing was Kerry’s and Edwards’ defense against Kerry being a flip-flopper.
When asked about how damaging Kerry’s portrayal as a flip-flopper by Republicans (and his own record for that matter) has been to his candidacy, Kerry said “Well, it’s just not true.”
Wow… Good one. I’m really convinced.
Edwards, defending his running mate, said, “…flip-flopper? You gotta be kidding me. I mean, a guy who put his life on the line for the men who served with him in Vietnam every day? Ask them what he’s made of. Ask them what kind of backbone and courage he has.”
Amazing. Kerry can’t be a flip-flopper because he was in Vietnam. If you needed a clearer example of how the Kerry ticket thinks that Vietnam absolves him of taking any responsibility for his 20-year record in the Senate of being weak on defense, anti-military, and changing his position of issues when it’s politically convenient.
This is the ticket we are against. The Kerry/Edwards/Vietnam ticket. In an election where the primary issue should be the War on Terror, Kerry still thinks it’s all about Vietnam. Clearly, Kerry and Edwards are going to run their campaign that way.
Kerry wants to use Vietnam as his shield because he can’t attack Bush over the War on Terror. Kerry even boasts pride over voting against the $87 billion for our soldiers fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry said, “I’m proud to say that John [Edwards] joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed.”
If I said something so disgustingly irresponsible, I’d rather talk about Vietnam too.
If it’s about the War on Terror, why are you bringing up Iraq? There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda, and we’ve discussed NUMEROUS times about how going into Iraq has done nothing to stop terrorism.
But then again, that implies that everyone listens during these arguments.
But, on to supporting the troops. Did he talk about supporting them before? Yes. But WHEN? Why, I do beleive it was back when everyone thought they had WMDs. I mean, heck, I was for the war when I thought they had WMDs.
But then we found out that they, you know, didn’t.
As for the flip flopping…wow. Are you blind? Check out the dates, and what’s being sad. He’s not saying “I’m against all trade with them,” he’s saying “I think you didn’t do it correctly.”
But why bother with those messy “facts?”
Oh, and he flip flopped on the war too, right? Only, I already covered that in the first section. Times change, opinions change. If anything, it’s wiser to change one’s opinion then to hold on stubbornly.
Oh darn, he flip flopped on marrige taxes. He changed his mind withen the space of 5 YEARS.
You don’t speak legal babel very well if you don’t see what really happened when he “flip flopped” on same-sex marriges. He is personally against it, but for civil unions. In the first case, he’s saying that same-sex relationships should be recognized. In the second, he’s taking a more catious stance-which, if you understand how most laws and bills work, is very wise-because, as I said, he’s against the marrige but for civil unions.
Oh, he voted against the death penalty in 1996. But what’s this, AFTER THEY ATTACKED 4 YEARS LATER, he changed his mind! How horrible!
Kerry voted for No Child Left behind, then complains that the president didn’t do it correctly. That’s not flip flopping. He’s not against the act, he’s against how it was used.
He flip flopped on affirmative action? Strange, he says “I’ve always voted for it,” and they didn’t mention that he didn’t. Odd, the way they don’t talk about that.
Now, I really don’t have time to do every single one. But you should be seeing what I’m getting at here. The facts are quite obviously twisted around. And I noticed that not ONE of these actually gives a link or explination on what the exact bill was being voted on.
You see, many times things are added onto a bill. Lets use an example here. Lets say I don’t like PB&J sandwiches. If I vote against a bill that would increase the number of said sandwiches, then it should be fairily obvious that I’m against them.
However, if I vote against a bill that increases ice cream, apple pie, and PB&J sandwiches, there’s no way to tell if I’m opposed to ice cream, apple pie, AND PB&J, or only one of those items. I may be in favor of ice cream, but oppose PB&J enough to be willing to sacrifice it.
Furthermore, voting against an amendment that has nothing to do with the bill it’s being attached to does count as opposing, but should be noted. First, it’s kind of a cheap shot on the amender’s part. Second, the vote against could be on the principle that it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If we’re discussing a bill on bicycle registration, and I vote against adding an amendment that increases consumption of PB&J sandwiches, I may be opposed to PB&J, or I may just be thinking “what the heck does PB&J have to do with bicycle registration? I don’t want the issue mucked up.”
Circumstances change, and we want our leaders to change with them. Thus, while historical voting records are important, the latest are most important. Say I was opposed to PB&J in 2001, when the FDA allowed 30 insect parts per 100g of peanut butter. Now say in 2005, that number is dropped to 3 parts per 100g. If I then become pro-PB&J, that doesn’t mean I’m wishy-washy. That means circumstances have changed.
If you have a cable modem – check this out..
http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html
And remember that Bush went to Yale and Harvard and got better grades than Gore – Don’t know about Kerry.
The grades one gets in school is rarely a true sign of their intellegence. At least, I know that’s what it is for high school
Just saying – Yale, Harvard, Fighter Pilot, Millionaire, Governor, President – why does the left call him stupid? Looks to me like he’s done pretty well. – At least he didn’t have to marry his money. Gosh, I wish MY wife would buy me the White House for Christmas!
of course he didn’t have to marry money. he inherited it from his dad!
That’s the second time you made that “buying the white house” joke -_-.
Pfh, One inherited the money, the other married into it…same thing. But qt has a point. Do you think he would’ve gotten ALL that if his dad wasn’t president at one point?
Um, not when he was Yale and Harvard or flying jets. And, yes he inherited SOME money. But he grew it substantially through his oil business. Still, where does the left get off calling him stupid and Kerry intelectual. Please note – the vast majority of the Dems in the Senate are rich – far richer than their Republican counterparts (Kennedy, Rockefeller,Kerry, Edwards,…). Only a handful (like Edwards) are self made. Teddy K (I believe) got kicked out of Harvard for cheating – he’s not called stupid.
They get off for calling Kerry an intellectual and Bush stupid for the same reason the right gets off by calling kerry a pinko commie and Bush the greatest president ever.
People hurl insults. It happens. Especially when your famous.
Sorry – we reserve that honor for Mr. reagan. And, you look at this link and tell me. If a guy is going to bring up something he did 30 years ago, then we get to talk about stuff he’s done since then – right?
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier
Go right ahead, I see no problem with it.
Of course, Vietnma was a rather idiotic war, so I don’t see how protesting it was a BAD thing…
The only idiotic thing about it was letting left wing wackos and the press keep us from winning.
But then again, Democrats got us in there and Republicans got us out.
Well, why were we there? A good friend of mine is an exchange student from Vietnam, and many people there don’t like us too much for getting involved.
And of course, there were all those messes with the massacres and such.
I love how you seem to blame everything on “the left wing wackos.” Maybe we lost because we didn’t know who the enemy was, or where they’d hit? In fact, do explain to me how we lost because of democrats and the press.
Name five massacres with units involved, numbers killed, dates, and locations. If you can’t – please admit it.
Ask your friend how he feels about Vietnam invading Laos and Cambodia and running supplies through them and launching attacks from them. Ask him if he thinks the Tet offensive was as much a ploy to destroy the Communist leadership in the South as it was a move to attack the Americans. Ask him if he feels responsible for toppling the government in Cambodia leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge – the only group I know of to commit self-genocide.
How we lost Viet Nam is really too deep a subject for a blog like this.
And FYI – All our actions make up the sum of who we are. Benedict Arnold was a great American General – before he betrayed us. Even if Kerry was a hero in Viet Nam (IF) then he squandered it by betraying the veterans and men still there in furtherance of his political career.
First of all, you never answered my question about why we were there to begin with.
Secondly, I never said that the other side acted justly. War isn’t nice and happy and pleasent. There’s no “evil” and “good” side. Most of the time, it’s just “Us, and the ones trying to kill us.”
Here’s something that is well known-the southern vietnamese government was very, very highly corrupt-and we were fighting for it.
On the massacres, it was actually Korea that did a lot, most of which are more documented then what is known about American troops.
The war was horrible. That’s a simple fact. But why was it being fought?
If you really don’t know. Then, I can’t explain it to you. Go read some.
And Chicago, Boston, DC, and LA are corrupt also. We’d still defend them.
Last I checked, the city leaders of those places didn’t inprison and kill hundreds of buddhists.
No – you’re right. So, you really are that Clueless about why Viet Nam eh?
By the way, who killed more innocents you figure? The South or the North or the Viet Cong. Still waiting for the dates etc. on all those massacres! No – you are doing what you have accused others here of doing – making generalizations (and now accusations) with no proof or documentation.
I never side the other side was chaste.
I asked simply enough “why were we there?”
As for the massacres, I gave the two that were best documented. Are you telling me that others happened without documentation?
And check your facts-read up on Ngo Dinh Diem. Don’t believe me on the heavy persecution of buddhists?
Now, what generalizations am I making? What accusations am I making? I said that the war was stupid in every sense of the word. You have yet to prove me wrong.
Why were we there? Here’s the reason I’ve seen over and over in all the research I’ve done.
North Vietnam was communist (or at least they used that word) and America was very heavily anti-communist at the time. With the Cold War in full swing, America was afraid of communism taking over the entire region. It had already taken Korea, Cuba, and easter Europe; we didn’t want it to go any further.
We were there to stop the spread of Communism throughout south east asia.
And two massacres. In a war that lasted how long? Bad – but barely worth mention as one of your major points.
I actually didn’t mean it to be a major point, I jus sorta threw it in there when this debate was first started ^_^;;
The point I was making was: should we have been there in the first place? We obviously failed at stopping the spread of communism in this particular war.
Why were we there, Kyle? Ask the Democrats…they put us there.
Edwards is the perfect choice for Kerry…the ultimate flip-flop. During the primaries, according to Kerry, Edwards wasn’t experienced enough to be president. Now, suddenly, he is.
This should not even be an issue. Kerry went to war when he didn’t have to go and then decided to protest against it when he got out. Bush supported the war but felt HE didn’t have to go.
And we didn’t lose Vietnam because of “the liberal media”. We lost it for the same reason we are having a tough time in Iraq. If you fight a war you have to follow four clearly defined criteria:
–clear, direct danger to America or vital national interests;
–popular support and consensus for the action;
–support from allies so we don’t go in essentially alone;
–a clear objective;
–a clear exit strategy.
There are not enough troops in Iraq, our “allies” are pulling out, the objective for being in Iraq keeps changing, and there was clearly NO exit strategy. We are fighting a half-ass war in Iraq and Bush’s goal has gone from a century long worldwide Pax Americana to cobbling together a puppet-Iraqi government that doesn’t implode before November 3rd of 2004.
Meanwhile the right wing media keeps claiming that everything is peachy keen in Iraq and that the insurgency is some kind of fabrication of the gay-lib establishment.
Robert, this discussion on the war isn’t even about democrats and republicans. Read the topic, THEN try posting.
Oh, and I’m not even a democrat. Smart.
Where do Kerry stand on gay marriages.
I just wanted to say that im 14 years old and if i could vote i would vote for kerry. Even though im not gay i support him on it. Everyone has a right t o there on sex lives