Minstrel

True, that would have been more precise. In these discussions, it becomes all too easy to characterize too widely.

Insofar as all legislators are, he has been inconsistent. The view being propogated by the Republican party (by which I mean the entrenched power structure of the party) is that Kerry doesn't have firm stands and constantly shifts what he's for and against.

There is no more truth to that than any Senator, making the image being offered effectively a lie.

In that case, we should never vote for any politician, because they all manifest "inconsistencies," however well-intentioned.

Bush stressed over and over that the US role was not to engage in nation-building, when he was campaigning. Over and over. Look at what he's running for re-election on: Nation-building in Iraq.

The Daily Show ran a tremendous montage, set as a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush, of what Bush said before election and during his Presidency.

So why is Kerry a "flip-flopper"? He isn't...the Republican party and their conservative media mouthpieces are simply much better than the Democrats in pounding lies into the US voter psyche. Maybe that's a point of pride for them, maybe not.

Yet, the people in this country who think Kerry is a flip-flopper and full of "well-intentioned inconsistencies," but Bush isn't, have clearly not thought very much about and investigated the issues.

That's my view.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Ed O

Was the Daily Show setting forth a lie by showing those inconsistencies? I didn't see the piece, but assuming The Daily Show has any journalistic integrity (and I pray to God that it does, considering what a shockingly high number of people supposedly rely on it for their source of news) then I would guess they fairly used clips and Bush's own words to show potential hypocrisy.

If Bush has flip-flopped on issues that matter to voters, then the Democrats should call him on it, and it shouldn't be seen as a personal attack of a fabrication.

I respect your view, Minstrel. Absolutely. As far as I can tell, though, Kerry HAS has some pretty marked inconsistencies about pretty major issues such as NAFTA, the PATRIOT Act, and the Iraq war... whether those inconsistencies are because of a change in world events or because of political expediency, I don't know.

But the Republicans calling him on them--even to the point of painting him in an unfavorable light by not giving him the benefit of any doubts--is standard politics. I don't think it's any more out of bounds than the Democrats criticizing Bush for his handling of the economy in spite of pretty good growth over the past year or so and the country not having gone into a recession under this Bush.

And I'm not saying that to say that what the Democrats are doing is wrong: the economy IS important, and it hasn't performed that well under G.W. Bush. and if the Democrats spin the performance to their benefit, then that's the way politics works in this country.

Ed O.

__________________
"In the end, it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish last."

-- Sandy Koufax

Minstrel

They haven't been going out of their way to call Bush a "flip-flopper." I believe the segment was in response to Bush saying something along the lines of, "I've stuck by all my campaign promises."

Some inconsistencies are worse than others. Voting for and against something due to unfavourable riders is different from not shaping your executive policy by the principles you said you'd shape them by. In my opinion.

They didn't chop sentences down and use sound bites to make him seem like he said things he never said. They showed him stating things he repeated over and over...I don't think anyone could claim The Daily Show was being deceptive.

One might, to be nicer to Bush, say that his "no nation-building" promise was made before 9/11 and that 9/11 fundamentally changed the world such that his promise no longer was correct policy. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, but we were talking about even well-intentioned inconsistencies being a legitimate worry to voters.

I'm not sure which inconsistencies you're referring to in NAFTA and the Patriot Act, but on the Iraq war, the Republican machine is claiming incessantly that Kerry voted first for the war and then came out against it.

The truth is that he voted for granting the President the ability to declare war. Not for war, itself. Later, he came down against war under the particular circumstances it was declared.

Those are two separate things, logically. But it is easy to twist them into the same thing, especially with people who aren't going to check carefully.

And I agree that it is standard politics. Politics isn't about truth, it's about superior marketing. I wish the Democrats would toughen up and flog Bush unmercifully. Michael Moore did a nice job of it. (And, note, I'm not claiming everything Moore put forth was perfectly fair and accurate.)

As Clinton said, "I liked it when the opposition would attack me, because that meant I could hit back with both fists and not be seen as going negative."

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Iwatas

I think the Dems thought long and hard about this, and decided that this kind of attack was going to lose votes. This is why the convention was so very watered down -- Al Gore didn't give the stem-winding speech he had been giving earlier this year, Howard Dean didn't explode, etc.

At issue are the 3% of voters who are both likely and undecided. Both parties are wooing the heck out of them. And I think they are right that undecideds are not going to support a candidate because the other side becomes downright nasty. Michael Moore may have hurt the Dems more than he helped, esp. since Kerry has not kept him at arms length.

There are those of us who really do not care for the man you always seem to quote (Clinton). Yet while Clinton didn't won more than 43% of the vote, his support never foundered despite all the nasty things which could (and often were) truthfully said about him. Moderates in America can be swayed by fear and anger, but they don't want to be convinced that way. They prefer sunny optimism and sporting sentiments. Deaniacs don't offer that. Bill Clinton did, warts and all.

Minstrel

He's not my ideal, either, politically. But he's a brilliant person and politician, so I take what he says about politics seriously. He kicked the crap out of the Republicans at virtually every turn.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Iwatas

Huh? Personally, he did very well. But under his leadership the Dems lost the House, the Senate, most state houses, and most governorships. Bill Clinton brought nobody along with him - he scorched the earth under the party. He was good at winning -- but only for himself.

Iwatas

The Difference between the Right and the Left:

Minstrel

So? That's all fairly irrelevant.

He was never for the Democratic party. He did what he had to for his own success, and he was one of the most successful politicians of all-time. The Republicans mounted attack after attack on him and he destroyed them. The Gingrich Revolution died a fiery death against Clinton.

In the end, an individual is out for his own success first. I don't think there's a politician who would trade personal success for "party success." If you offered any politician the choice of "your party winning a lot of governorships, the Senate and the House, but you will be nothing" or "You will be President but your party will lose all those things," I don't believe a single politician would select choice one.

So you're trying to disparage Clinton's success by using rather meaningless metrics. I said that Clinton was one of the most brilliant politicians ever, and he was. Unquestionably. In his own battles, he destroyed the Republicans. Every time, essentially.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Minstrel

The difference is that the Right makes comments simplified to the extent that they're incredibly stupid and nonsensical?

That's highly unfair to a lot of reasonable, non-idiotic conservatives. Please don't stereotype the Right so insultingly.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Iwatas

thebac

John Lott's "studies" have been widely discredited in his field of economics. What's more, I don't see how one can still take him seriously after he invented an admirer of himself on the Web to praise himself and attack his numerous critics. Heck, he admits to posting (on Amazon.com) a favorable review of his own book written by his son under that moniker. He's not a scientist, he's a partisan hack.

STOMP

Bush/Swift Boat Lawyer resigns...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...tm?POE=NEWISVA

STOMP