Bush Accusing Kerry of Flip-flopping

[Donutboy 0]

If Bush wants to compare flip-flops with Kerry—Bring it on!

By Mick Youther

The Bush Attack Machine started to define John Kerry as “a captive of special interests”. Then it came out that Bush had received more campaign contributions from Enron alone, than Kerry had received from lobbyists during all his years in the Senate; so the attack moved on to Plan B— defining Kerry as a flip-flopper and Bush as “steady and steadfast”.

They know that anyone who has been in the Senate for eighteen years will have a voting record that can be distorted to look bad. If a Senator voted against a bloated spending-bill that contained funding for breast cancer research, they can claim that Senator is against breast cancer research. Ask John McCain—they pulled that one on him in the 2000 primary.

Now their problem is that the attack on Kerry has resulted in lists of Bush flip-flops popping up everywhere. This is just a sampling of the kinds of things that are coming out:

• When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.

• Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.

• Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.

• Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)

• Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)

• Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.

• Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.

• Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.

• Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.

• Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.

• When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

• During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)

• Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.

• Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.

• Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

• Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.

• Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”

To understand why steady and steadfast Bush would change his mind about so many important issues, you must understand the problem he faces every day. He has to somehow fool enough voters to be reelected, without actually doing anything for them or straying too far from the NeoCon’s agenda for the New World Order. So, if a majority of voters want something—like clean air, Bush is for it. He won’t follow through, or he won’t fund it properly, or he will do the exact opposite of what he promised; but he will continue to be for it. If a majority of voters oppose something; then Bush will oppose it too, but he will go right ahead and do it anyway—while speaking against it.

If that is the kind of President you want, Bush is your man. If you’d like something better, John Kerry is your man.

Bush’s Flip-Flops

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Allow me:

• When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.

Actually, he said that if the government is running record surpluses that's means they are overtaxing the people. Point of fact, Bush started talking about the economic downturn that was starting in the stock market months before the election, prompting accusations from the Gore team that he was talking the country into a recession.

• Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.

The set of circumstances Bush was looking at before the election were much different than the ones after 9/11. There was simply no way to properly deal with the Al Qaida threat in Afghanistan and the problems in Iraq without some kind of rebuilding plan. And frankly, it's the Dems who have been screaming for us to go into Haiti.

• Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.

And I'd be willing to bet that if 9/11 and the devastating effect it had on the economy, as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't come along, his plan would have. This is arguing without taking all factors into account.

• Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)

Actually, if the Dems would get off their "do-nothing" platform, Bush's partial privitization plan would not only save it, but would make it more effective in supplementing people's retirement for years to come. But Dems never really want to fix anything because that takes a campaign issue off their menu.

• Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)

I will agree, to an extent, with this criticism. Bush needs to use his veto more often. But the war and the 9/11 situation does have something to do with this if you're being honest.

• Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.

A source for this would be nice. As well as a truthful examination of the circumstances surrounding that decision. Is it that Bush doesn't want to regulate carbon dioxide, or just that he doesn't want to do it in the way that the Dems want him to?

• Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.

Bush opposed the version that the Dems were proposing, which was essentially to create a whole new department, fully unionized, etc. Bush was in favor of consolidating EXISTING departments under a new Homeland Security umbrella and was against blanket unionization of all the employees.

• Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.

He said he would veto it until some key provisions that balanced out the bill from it's previous tilt in favor of traditional Democrat leaning groups were added. Get the story straight.

• Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.

Bollocks. He opposed it, yes. But he went along with it because it was apparent that Congress was going to go forward with it anyway.

• Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.

Talk about spin. And am I discerning a pattern of no sources?

• When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

That was before state courts such as California's started disregarding the law and legislating from the bench. And even before the latest flare-up, he still put it out there that he was reluctant to pursue the amendment option, but he would if the courts kept making their own laws. The courts (and various city and county officials to boot) failed to heed that warning, so he has moved forward on it.

• During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)

Try to stay within, say, the last 20 years. Geez, this is a stretch. This was also before Bush turned his life around and became a Christian. I'm sure a lot of his moral beliefs underwent some changes. I don't remember Gore supporters seeing his formerly pro-life stance as a Tennessee congressman as a problem, did they?

• Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.

Actually, he did provide the funds, just not the amount that the Dems and their union supporters wanted. This is another case of the rather liberal definition that Dems have of "cuts".

• Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.

Actually, it was Congress that cut back on the amount that Bush proposed, with heavy Dem support, I might add. Liar.

• Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

Wrong. As this article from the non-partisan Factcheck.org states...:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=162

...federal spending on education has "soared under Bush", going up 58% in the first three years of his term, and is set to go even higher under the budget he proposed in January. In fact, federal spending on education has gone up more in Bush's three years than it did in the entire eight years Clinton was in office.

• Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.

Actually, another good article from Factcheck shows this to be a gross distortion as well:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149

Here's the key portion:

At one point the ad shows Bush saying “we must provide the best care” for veterans, then shows a graphic saying: “200,000 veterans cut off from health system.” It cites the Department of Veterans Affairs as the source. But the statement is false.

In fact, no veterans have had benefits cut off under Bush. Quite the contrary, as we’ve previously noted , spending for veterans benefits has grown 27% since Bush took office, and the ranks of veterans drawing benefits have increased by more than 1 million.

The Kerry campaign says the ad is referring to a proposal in Bush’s budget for fiscal year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. But that proposal has not been enacted and, in fact, a similar proposal was rejected last year. Congress is expected to reject it again this year.

Furthermore, the proposal would not “cut off” veterans as the ad says. It would instead raise the cost of the VA’s popular prescription–drug benefit. The VA estimates this would cause an estimated 200,000 veterans to leave the system -- voluntarily -- because they have better benefits from other sources. The drug benefit currently requires no payment to gain coverage, and a $7 co-payment for each one-month supply of prescription drugs. The Bush administration proposes to charge $21 per month for coverage, and to raise the co-payment to $15 per one-month supply of prescription medications.

• Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”

Well, it would be nice to know when and in what context he made both statements. For instance, it has become more and more apparent that finding Bin Laden, while important, would not be the end of Al Qaida. But then again, we don't know because once again, there is no source given.

Anything else? You know, you really ought to research things for yourself a little more before just blindly reprinting things over here. I'm not saying reprints are wrong or bad in and of themselves, but I'd make sure they know what they are talking about first before I attached my name to it.

[Ranger12 53]

C'mon Donut, you know all that was bogus, but yet you post it anyway. You liberals are getting so desperate. Some of those topics have already been discussed on this board and found to be false. I am associated with several military support organizations, besides the fact that I still work with the military itself, and can assure you that Bush has not made any "cuts" for soldiers and their families. As a matter of fact, Bush signed the pay raise for soldiers just a couple of months ago.

[Tigermike 3,717]

Allow me:

• When Bush first took office, he said the economy was so good we should have huge tax cuts, but now he claims we were in a recession then and that is why we now have record deficits.

Actually, he said that if the government is running record surpluses that's means they are overtaxing the people. Point of fact, Bush started talking about the economic downturn that was starting in the stock market months before the election, prompting accusations from the Gore team that he was talking the country into a recession.

• Candidate Bush was very vocal in his criticism of nation building, but now President Bush is busy building nations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and it looks like Haiti is next. These nations are being built with our soldier’s lives and our tax dollars.

The set of circumstances Bush was looking at before the election were much different than the ones after 9/11. There was simply no way to properly deal with the Al Qaida threat in Afghanistan and the problems in Iraq without some kind of rebuilding plan. And frankly, it's the Dems who have been screaming for us to go into Haiti.

• Bush claimed his budget plan would reduce the National Debt. Instead, the federal debt has increased to almost $7 trillion.

And I'd be willing to bet that if 9/11 and the devastating effect it had on the economy, as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan hadn't come along, his plan would have. This is arguing without taking all factors into account.

• Candidate Bush promised to protect the Social Security trust fund, but President Bush has already squandered more than $350 billion from the fund. (Consortium News, 3/2/04)

Actually, if the Dems would get off their "do-nothing" platform, Bush's partial privitization plan would not only save it, but would make it more effective in supplementing people's retirement for years to come. But Dems never really want to fix anything because that takes a campaign issue off their menu.

• Bush said he would, “enforce fiscal discipline on Congress, because when spending is out of control, deficits increase and our economic growth is hindered...", but federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since he took office. (Bill Gallagher, Friends of Liberty, 12/11/03)

I will agree, to an extent, with this criticism. Bush needs to use his veto more often. But the war and the 9/11 situation does have something to do with this if you're being honest.

• Candidate Bush proposed regulating carbon dioxide, but two months after taking office, President Bush changed his mind.

A source for this would be nice. As well as a truthful examination of the circumstances surrounding that decision. Is it that Bush doesn't want to regulate carbon dioxide, or just that he doesn't want to do it in the way that the Dems want him to?

• Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department when it was proposed by Democrats; but later embraced the idea and took credit for it.

Bush opposed the version that the Dems were proposing, which was essentially to create a whole new department, fully unionized, etc. Bush was in favor of consolidating EXISTING departments under a new Homeland Security umbrella and was against blanket unionization of all the employees.

• Bush said he would veto the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, but changed his mind and signed it.

He said he would veto it until some key provisions that balanced out the bill from it's previous tilt in favor of traditional Democrat leaning groups were added. Get the story straight.

• Bush opposed an investigation of the attacks of 9/11—then he supported it, but his administration has done everything it could to obstruct the investigation.

Bollocks. He opposed it, yes. But he went along with it because it was apparent that Congress was going to go forward with it anyway.

• Bush opposed an Iraq WMD investigation, but then he's for it because he has to pretend he’s interested in why he was so wrong about Iraq’s WMD.

Talk about spin. And am I discerning a pattern of no sources?

• When asked about gay marriage, candidate Bush said, “the state can do what they want to do,”—but now President Bush wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

That was before state courts such as California's started disregarding the law and legislating from the bench. And even before the latest flare-up, he still put it out there that he was reluctant to pursue the amendment option, but he would if the courts kept making their own laws. The courts (and various city and county officials to boot) failed to heed that warning, so he has moved forward on it.

• During an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush opposed the pro-life amendment and favored leaving the abortion question to a woman and her doctor. Then, like his father before him, he customized his beliefs to become more electable to conservatives. (The Nation, 6/15/00)

Try to stay within, say, the last 20 years. Geez, this is a stretch. This was also before Bush turned his life around and became a Christian. I'm sure a lot of his moral beliefs underwent some changes. I don't remember Gore supporters seeing his formerly pro-life stance as a Tennessee congressman as a problem, did they?

• Bush promised money for first responders, but failed to provide the funds.

Actually, he did provide the funds, just not the amount that the Dems and their union supporters wanted. This is another case of the rather liberal definition that Dems have of "cuts".

• Bush promised billions of dollars to help fight AIDS in Africa, but failed to provide the funds.

Actually, it was Congress that cut back on the amount that Bush proposed, with heavy Dem support, I might add. Liar.

• Bush presented his “No Child Left Behind Program” with great fanfare, but failed to provide the funds.

Wrong. As this article from the non-partisan Factcheck.org states...:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=162

...federal spending on education has "soared under Bush", going up 58% in the first three years of his term, and is set to go even higher under the budget he proposed in January. In fact, federal spending on education has gone up more in Bush's three years than it did in the entire eight years Clinton was in office.

• Bush continues to praise American troops, but continues to try to cut benefits for them and their families.

Actually, another good article from Factcheck shows this to be a gross distortion as well:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149

Here's the key portion:

At one point the ad shows Bush saying “we must provide the best care” for veterans, then shows a graphic saying: “200,000 veterans cut off from health system.” It cites the Department of Veterans Affairs as the source. But the statement is false.

In fact, no veterans have had benefits cut off under Bush. Quite the contrary, as we’ve previously noted , spending for veterans benefits has grown 27% since Bush took office, and the ranks of veterans drawing benefits have increased by more than 1 million.

The Kerry campaign says the ad is referring to a proposal in Bush’s budget for fiscal year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. But that proposal has not been enacted and, in fact, a similar proposal was rejected last year. Congress is expected to reject it again this year.

Furthermore, the proposal would not “cut off” veterans as the ad says. It would instead raise the cost of the VA’s popular prescription–drug benefit. The VA estimates this would cause an estimated 200,000 veterans to leave the system -- voluntarily -- because they have better benefits from other sources. The drug benefit currently requires no payment to gain coverage, and a $7 co-payment for each one-month supply of prescription drugs. The Bush administration proposes to charge $21 per month for coverage, and to raise the co-payment to $15 per one-month supply of prescription medications.

• Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden”, but changed it to, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.”

Well, it would be nice to know when and in what context he made both statements. For instance, it has become more and more apparent that finding Bin Laden, while important, would not be the end of Al Qaida. But then again, we don't know because once again, there is no source given.

Anything else? You know, you really ought to research things for yourself a little more before just blindly reprinting things over here. I'm not saying reprints are wrong or bad in and of themselves, but I'd make sure they know what they are talking about first before I attached my name to it.

Come on Titan, you are using way too many FACTS for the dems.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I haven't had any of my benefits cut. As a matter of fact, I'm making more now than ever before.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

this is a classic example of the dems being unable to come up w/ their own 'issue' and have it stick.

they now have to steal the pubs' complaints and fit them onto bush.