When has Kerry ever contradicted himself?

I'm sick of hearing this.

Examples please. With references. In context.

Or else I start banning Republicans. j/k! :XD:

Asketh and though shalt... recieve...-eth.......

All you would have to do is type in "Kerry flip flops" on Google and you'd find sites giving direct quotes... but here's stuff ol' Dubya has on Kerry with full references. There's way to much there to copy and paste, so I'll just send you a link, and give one example, though.

http://www.georgewbu...ad.aspx?ID=2439

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

---
People can always ask for more context... I believe those quotes are large enough, they're complete sentences, they get across an entire idea, and they're contradictory.

Okay... let's do a few more, these are fun!

Flip-Flopped On Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Flip-Flopped On Ethanol

Kerry Twice Voted Against Tax Breaks For Ethanol. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #44: Rejected 48-52: R 11-32; D 37-20, 3/23/93, Kerry Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #68: Motion Agreed To 55-43: R 2-40; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted Against Ethanol Mandates. (H.R. 4624, CQ Vote #255: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 19-25; D 31-25, 8/3/94, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Voted Twice To Increase Liability On Ethanol, Making It Equal To Regular Gasoline. (S. 517, CQ Vote #87: Motion Agreed To 57-42: R 38-10; D 18-32; I 1-0, 4/25/02 Kerry Voted Nay; S. 14, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 38-57: R 9-40; D 28-17; I 1-0, 6/5/03, Kerry Voted Yea)

On The Campaign Trail, Though, Kerry Is For Ethanol. KERRY: “I’m for ethanol, and I think it’s a very important partial ingredient of the overall mix of alternative and renewable fuels we ought to commit to.” (MSNBC/DNC, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 11/24/03)

Flip-Flopped On Israel Security Fence

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.” “And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.” “US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense’ after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,” The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

meh the way i see it is that people change their minds over time. i've done it you've done, we've all done it. if you look closer at a lot of those "flip-flops" you'll see that he wasn't given full information at the time and that when he changed his vote it was because he had more information that made him change his mind.
i'm pretty sure he's not the only person in the history of the world to ever change their vote

Wow, Vorpal... that puts me to shame.

I must be off to class right now. I'll be there all day. Even if I could get to a computer there I can't justify enough time to say anything about those examples. So I guess it will have to wait. But I will be back. And I f I can't refute one or all, so what. Bush has his own number of flip flops in the form of broken campaign promises.

Guys, why are we treasuring consistency as if it were a virtue? It seems to me like when Kerry realizes he's screwed up, he "flip-flops" so that he can fix his mistake. That's what we want in a politician, isn't it?

God forbid the man should change his mind with the arival of new evidence. What, does he think the president gets payed to just sit there and make the most imformed possible decisions for the good of the country for four years? That don't sound very resolute to me!

About the war. Look at Kerry's quote: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.”

This doesn't mean that he 'flip-flopped' against the war. Kerry's been a supporter of the war. He just doesn't agree with the way its been handled.

There's a difference between disagreeing with something entirely, and disagreeing with the way its been handled.

And yes, we do need a context for these, far more than you have given.

And most of the people who voted for the Patriot Act didn't read it. You see how huge it was? How quickly it was assembled? People voted for it because in the wake of 9/11, they had to vote for it, or people would have eaten them alive. Look at the name. "The Patriot Act"

OMG! YOU VOTED AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT! AND YOU'RE OUR SENATOR! DIEEEEEEEEE!

That would basically have been the public's reactions.

It's kinda weird coming from the Cube forums to here... the majority of the cube community is german and laughs at us poor american fools. very stark differences, keeps you on your toes politically.

i think it's ok that kerry has changed... he's feeling out his audience, which is a good idea... if he gets elected he'll be negotiator in chief, and'll need to be able to find what sits well with a hostile crowd.

Hey... all I did was show some flip-flops, like was requested... I purposely chose example in which only a few months had gone by... most of which happened during his campaign for President.

I see nothing wrong with changing one's mind on issues, even at Kerry's age. The problem with Kerry is that he more so appears to change his stance to fit the situation, to please the most people. I mean just within a few days of each other, he reconfirmed his belief that women have the right to choose abortion, and then later he said he believed that life began at conception!?!? I'm sorry, but stradling the line on every issue while you're running for President is worse than being strongly for or against something.

I don't want a president whose view changes because of changing popular opinion. I would rather have a president who does what he believes is right, cause I'd rather vote for a single man, than for the changing whims of the American populace (which let's admit, doesn't know all that much about anything)

He "flipped" to the UNpopular stance on many issues! The war, for example- you could say that not supporting it strengthens his base, but it alienates so many voters, especially in swing states, that it couldn't have been such a cynical decesion!

It alienates mostly hard-core Democrats. If he was to take an entirely anti-war approach, it would first be unfeasible, but it would also alienate him from the majority of America, and only help him with his very liberal base.

Dean took that route, and he fell flat on his face. And, considering that it would be worse to leave Iraq immediately than to try to stabilize it, no matter whether you were originally for it or against it, or currently for or against it, Kerry doesn't have much of a choice on the subject if he wants to stand a chance of getting elected.

Actually, Dean succeded and then failed for the same reason- people think what they're told. I that wern't the case there wouldn't be advertising, the debates would have start months ago, and every candidate would lose their middle-base(The stupid but die-hard people who support them to the death for no other reason than that they support them to the death.)

Kerry's new stance is too risky to have been cynical, "I support the war but not the way it's run" Is about as far from "I support our troops and love America" as I can see.

There's a difference between changing your mind, and completely contradicting yourself. We can't have Kerry say "Alright let's invade Germany" and then a few months in, say "Alright, I changed my mind. Let's attack Russia!"

Need I bring up the age old issue of "I voted for it before I voted against it"?

Need I debunk it AGAIN with the fact that it was ammended to the point of being useless. If we wanna get taking quotes out of context, Bush has declared war on the United States. Is he leading the country or attacking it? Which is it flip flopper.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5613296/

Thanks for taking the time to post some examples, Vorpal. I have taken the time to read them and I have some comments.

First, a general comment. A voting record isn't always a reliable guide to a politician's positions. Bills are often politicized. Unrelated things are put in, which are undesirable to one party. So, either you have to pass the bill and swallow the undesirable additions, or vote against the ENTIRE bill on PRINCIPLE to avoid the undesirable additions.

This is why I asked for SOURCES and CONTEXT. Merely saying what Kerry voted on isn't enough. I want to know WHY he voted a certain way. He probably has good reasons.

And of course, he could have merely changed his mind. Which isn't a flip-flop, as long as he remains consistent. I think this whole "flip-flop" thing is a myth propogated by the conservative media. Like the whole "Gore is a liar" myth which ruined his credibility even though it was all bullshit. I tend not to give any credit to negative compaigning because it tends to be utter bullshit.

Kerry isn't necessarily changing his views to suit the public. He might be changing his views after talking to people because *shock* he heard a good argument that changed his mind, or made him realize he needed to clarify himself! Happens to me all the time. I explain myself, people don't quite understand, so I explain more and it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not really, because they still don't fully understand. The bullshit conservative press is merely taking this common phenomena and blowing it way out of proportion to make Kerry look bad. And if you fall for it, well.... let's just say human nature doesn't change so easily, and we tend not to learn from the past.

Anyway, specific comments/concerns:

Marriage Penalty: Looks suspicious doesn't it? But perhaps this bill was politicized? Needs to be researched.

Patriot Act: Not a flip-flop. Politicians had little choice but to pass it in the first place. They didn't necessarily agree with all of it, even assuming they actually read it. Kerry is right to express his discontent with the Patriot Act, not flip-flopping.

Ethanol: I don't understand half the issues here, so I can't really tell if he's flip-flopping or not. The economic issues probably go way beyond the abstract policy of "supporting ethanol." It's possible to support something but not be able to implement it, and thus treat it realistically.

Israel Security Fence: Not a flip-flop. It's a clarification. Kerry wanted to make it clear that he thought Israel had done a VALID thing, but not the BEST thing. Just because something is a "legitimate act of self-defense" doesn't mean it was the best thing you could have done. Kerry is saying that this wall will only perpetuate the violence there. It will not lead to peace. If you ask him, I'm sure he has some ideas of OTHER legitimate acts of self-defense that WOULD lead to peace instead of more violence. Why would Kerry feel the need to clarify this in the first place? Because there's an attitude among certain people that Israel is an illegitimate state and it cannot legitimately act in its own defense. Kerry wanted to make it clear that, even though he's criticizing Israel's policies, he's not anti-Israel and not an antisemitic.

Korhend: First of all, that news article makes MSNBC's bias more visible than ever. Second of all, I'm not saying Bush has never misspoke. It's just that his slip ups are just grammar quirks. Kerry contradicts himself, which Bush doesn't do. Bush has never claimed to be a support AND against the war. Kerry has.

How? How is it not a contradiction to lead a country and attack it? MSNBC is biased because it states something that Bush actually said? Nice evasion of the point that laws can be ammended.

hehe, I love bushisms. I also love what dan quale says.

When Bush says something out of place its a "bushism" when clinton says one word out of line its impeachable

[quote]Originally posted by Korhend+-->

QUOTE(Korhend)

How? How is it not a contradiction to lead a country and attack it? MSNBC is biased because it states something that Bush actually said? Nice evasion of the point that laws can be ammended. [/b][/quote]

How can you even question MSNBC's bias? The fact that they called it a Bushism, and needed to make note of it with a article should be proof enough that they are anti-Bush.

Secondly, ever think you're taking this out of context? Here's the line: “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps Bush was trying to say that we never stop thinking about terrorists and how they can harm our country?

#22 Korhend

Korhend

The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

• 
• Members
• 
• 2,213 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 22 2004, 02:44 PM
Clinton having SEX with Monica Lewinsky is impeachable. "Bushisms" are slip ups in grammar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually its not, lying under oath was. The president is free to sleep with whomever he wants, he just has to be honest about it. But did it ever occur to you that he meant to say "I did have sexual relations with that woman."

• Back to top

---

#23 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

Quiet Riot

• 
• ZL Staff
• 
• 2,428 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:49 PM

Are you kidding me?

• Back to top

---

#24 Alistia

Alistia

Warrior

• 
• Banned
• 649 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:51 PM

HoW: Bush doesn't contradict himself because he outright lies. All these "flip-flops" that people say Kerry makes are really just people saying "damnit, the democrat guy can actually put thoughts together. Ugh, that's not fair."

• Back to top

---

#25 davogones

davogones

Expert

• 
• Admin
• 
• 525 posts

• Location:Pasadena, CA
• Gender:Male
• 

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:51 PM

Lies are more impeachable than sexual indiscretions (which many former presidents were guilty of, Kennedy for instance). By your logic we should impeach about half our presidents.

Everybody calls them "Bushisms." It's not a hostile thing. Hostility would be to take such instances and use them to argue that Bush is a moron and unfit for office.

But this is off-topic. We're supposed to be talking Kerry here.

• Back to top

---

#26 Korhend

Korhend

The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

• 
• Members
• 
• 2,213 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 22 2004, 02:49 PM
Are you kidding me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove to me what thoughts were going through clintons head. If you cant we can either assume

Bush does not want to kill american babies
Clinton admitted to having sex with a woman

or

Bush wants to kill american babies.
Clinton lied about his sex life.

• Back to top

---

#27 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

Quiet Riot

• 
• ZL Staff
• 
• 2,428 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:55 PM

I love how you worded that, Korhend. It can only be Bush is evil and Clinton is good, or Bush is still the same and Clinton is still the same.

You're blowing the whole thing out of proportion, and the notion that Bush is going to attack America is BS. Nothing more, nothing less.

• Back to top

---

#28 Korhend

Korhend

The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

• 
• Members
• 
• 2,213 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 02:57 PM

Then the same should be applied to clintons denial. Besides, I can probably come up with more instances of "bushisms" threatening america then clintons denials in court.

• Back to top

---

#29 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

Quiet Riot

• 
• ZL Staff
• 
• 2,428 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 03:00 PM

Except Clinton said he didn't have sex with her. And he kept it up. Bush just mispeaks and people interpret it the wrong way. If Clinton meant to say he did have sex with Lewinsky, don't you think he would've clarified that?

• Back to top

---

#30 Korhend

Korhend

The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!

• 
• Members
• 
• 2,213 posts

Posted 22 September 2004 - 03:06 PM

Bush doesn't correct himself either, he does when people pick up on it. And its not interperating it differently, its reading what he did say, ask any english teacher what it means, clinton said it once under oath, same number of times Bush has admitted to treason. Treason is a crime punishable by death, Perjury get a maximum sentence of 10 years.

• Back to top

---