| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2299 Registered: 8-2003 |
Kerry: "Zell Miller is a flip-flopper. You can trust me on that. Right, General Clark?" | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 261 Registered: 12-2001 |
It's called common courtesy when making an introduction. Hell, even Bush praised Clinton ealier this year at the White House when introducing him. A general statement compared to the details he gave last night will not be enough. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 262 Registered: 12-2001 |
Ummm. "I choose my family over party" seems like a pretty strong message to the party Brian. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2300 Registered: 8-2003 |
I thought Miller was the capper to a theme at the convention of having a prominent democrat and two recognizable liberals support Bush over the most important issue this country has faced in 60 years. Mayor Koch and Ron Silver might feel safe in voting Democrat when their party offers a credible candidate on this issue. In the meantime, they'll vote for Bush, and fight Bush tooth and nail for their liberal domestic programs and approaches knowing they'll be safe to do so. | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 2444 Registered: 3-2002 |
The details Miller offered are as much or more a product of misrepresentation as reality. Kerry voted for a resolution to fund the war in Iraq when it was tied to a specific revenue source (a tax increase). He voted against a resolution to fund the war by adding to the deficit. If the Senate had half the guts it should have had in raising funds to match its legislation (NCLB included), we wouldn't be looking at half-trillion dollar deficits and the Bush administration would have had to take the first vote more seriously. Instead, they are using it as a whipping boy in a war of sound bites. Singlemalt, you've already flip-flopped on the Zell Miller defense. At first it was a pre-9/11 angle; now it is common courtesy. Next we can invoke the Swift Vets defense: "Yes, I made the introduction, but John Kerry must have written it, because those aren't the words I'd use." | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 8062 Registered: 4-1998  |
For those not understanding this simple point, Kerry was being the conservative and Miller the liberal. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 254 Registered: 6-2004  |
actually, I believe that was Zell's defense on CNN last night, more or less. he claimed to have been a freshman senator who was just reading what the party put in front of him. and I'm amused that Ron Silver was given a speaking slot at the RNC. when actors oppose the president, the Republican reaction is "who cares what a bunch of ignorant Hollywood entertainers think?" unless they're Republicans, in which case we should pay attention to them, or in Arnold's case, vote for them. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2301 Registered: 8-2003 |
That's a very informed take on Kerry's war resolution vote, Brian. The problem is it's been lost in the campaign by both sides. Kerry insists that he voted against the resolution because he wanted more international involvement, or a report back to Congress before the war, or a plan for the peace....or...or.....or.... But in reality, Kerry voted for the war funding only if it was tied to tax hikes. Biden himself allowed that Kerry's vote was a 'political' one on the resolution, and a mistake. Kerry's war votes and reasoning are suspect to begin with as typified by it's changing and rambling nature. This would throw another log on that fire, IMO, but the republicans haven't seized on it. Perhaps they got dizzy following Kerry's line of reasoning. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 263 Registered: 12-2001 |
It's not a flip flop. one has absooutely nothing to do with the other. Zell was probably forced to read an introduction that was written by John Kerry himself. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 8064 Registered: 4-1998 |
Actually, all the speeches are approved by Rove (seriously). | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 264 Registered: 12-2001 |
You are so right Dave. The RNC and DNC are so scripted that the speeches are made available to the media days in advance. It was obvious to me the speech delivered by Miller was written and prepared entirely by the RNC. It was too perfect for their cause not to be. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 8067 Registered: 4-1998 |
Agreed. It's all theater. Both sides. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 130 Registered: 12-2003 |
But in reality, Kerry voted for the war funding only if it was tied to tax hikes. What a cute way of putting it. Because he's a poor planner, Bush sends the troops to Iraq without proper equipment or funding, then he finally gets around to sending them money by putting it on America's credit card, already strained to the limit by tax cuts. John Kerry asks wealthy Americans to pay their fair share for the war, and suddenly HE'S the bad guy. What kind of idiot pushes tax cuts during war time? It's insanity. Why did Bush threaten to veto the first $87 billion appropriation that Kerry voted for? Is it because he hates the troops? Or was he playing politics, as politicians are supposed to do? This is a non-issue. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 266 Registered: 12-2001 |
The story about Kerry voting against the funding has been told enough that even if it's not completely true, most voters now accept it as fact. The people running the Kerry campaign are the worst I've ever seen. Horrible. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 8069 Registered: 4-1998 |
Some hunch tells me Kerry cares more about our troops than Bush does. And it's not only the fact that Bush wanted to cut Veterans' benefits. Kerry simply wants troops to be used as a LAST resort. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2302 Registered: 8-2003 |
It was a supplemental bill for ongoing operations of a war that -- like most wars -- changes as it goes along. Add to that Bush's veto threats have always been empty as he's signed everything that has crossed his desk. Tax cuts were necessary to jump start the economy and keep the recession mild. Add to that, Kerry's own spending plans would continue the red ink and then some. Fiscally responsible policy doesn't apply to domestic spending in Kerry's world, but he's got tight purse strings and a yen for outright cuts when it comes to the nation's military in the field. | ||
| Addy Citizen Username: Addy Post Number: 227 Registered: 12-2003  |
It was a last resort. Bush would be a big zero without a war to distract from his failure to catch bin laden. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 131 Registered: 12-2003 |
It was a supplemental bill for ongoing operations of a war that -- like most wars -- changes as it goes along. Come on. Bush's initial estimates weren't even in the ballpark. He allotted just enough money to clean up the flowers and candy the Iraqis were going to give our soldiers, and forgot to add in anything for body armor or drinking water. Even he's admitted his "miscalculation." Add to that Bush's veto threats have always been empty as he's signed everything that has crossed his desk. Silly Congress...taking the President at his word. They should've known not to listen to ol' Rubber Stamp Dubya. Tax cuts were necessary to jump start the economy and keep the recession mild. So why didn't it work? Or are we still blaming Clinton nearly four years after he's been in office? How on earth can you say the economy has been jumpstarted? Add to that, Kerry's own spending plans would continue the red ink and then some. Fiscally responsible policy doesn't apply to domestic spending in Kerry's world, but he's got tight purse strings and a yen for outright cuts when it comes to the nation's military in the field. Prove it, please. I'm tired of being the only one interested enough in facts to take the time to Google in order to expose all the spin around here. Present some facts, please, or admit that you're just regurgitating what someone told you about Democrats 30 years ago. | ||
| Mark Fuhrman Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 578 Registered: 9-2001  |
singlemalt--a tip of the shotglass to you. Kerry's folks have totally missed opportunities to respond clearly and cogently. They knew what was coming, but they did not have the ammunition ready. His only hope lies in the debates if he can raise these issues in a concise and clear manner--but I doubt it. He has to put the President on the defensive and use the record, but so far he has not shown ability or inclination to do so. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2303 Registered: 8-2003 |
Here you go, Madden. It's from the Seattle Times. Bit of Bush bashing in the same editorial too for fun reading for you.. My favorite line is the "embarrassed democrat economists": "Kerry says he would offset the cost of those programs by cutting federal contracting, some agriculture subsidies and "out-of-control administrative costs" in the government. Other savings would come from a revamping of the student-loan program, a commission to cut "corporate welfare" and the elimination of some missile-defense and other military-weapons programs. Assuming all those savings materialize, the tax-cut and spending proposals still could add as much as $1.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. That total is close to the bottom line of Bush's plan, which could add about $1.35 trillion to the deficit. Along with the $990 billion tax-cut extension, Bush has proposed health-care tax credits worth $120 billion, energy tax credits worth $175 billion and other tax proposals. Those parallel numbers have become an embarrassment to Democratic economists, who have tried — but failed — to convince the Kerry campaign that its rhetoric on fiscal rectitude should be matched by substance. "The deficit issue has just not been salient enough for Kerry to justify the pain required to address it in a political campaign," said one Democratic economist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Some Democrats say they can defend Kerry's promises only by comparing them with Bush's first term, during which record surpluses turned to record deficits." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002015802_deficit26.html |
