Powered by TypePad

« Top Ten At CBS | Main | You Can't Run On Third And Long »

September 30, 2004



Christmas or Easter,
Noon or Night,
Whatever I tell you,
I'm always right.

(Except when I'm Left.)



It was late in the evening - Paris time.


Uh, it seems like he's talking about when he first made the comment.


Which was when, Brian?

Jim Thomason

It wasn't during the primaries either. They were over and Kerry was the (unofficial, of course) Democratic nominee by the middle of March.


Ah, then I am mistaken. No big deal.


How convenient that you all forget that Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion if it was passed in the form Kerry voted for.
So Kerry voted for one version (pay as you go), and voted against the second version (let our kids pay for it). Bush promised to veto the first version, and support the second. Am I confused or doesn't that make Bush just as big a 'flip-flopper' as Kerry? And just as willing to fail to support our troops? Doesn't that make Bush just as 'weak on defense' as he accuses Kerry of being? And Rudy, in his convention speech, flat out lied to the country when he said Kerry voted for one thing, and then voted against "the exact same thing."
Kerry's comment was foolish, and Bush has had quite a bit of fun with it. But there's no substance to the criticism.
What a pack of hypocrites.



It doesn't matter when it comes to this administration. Why you are surprised by this even now is beyond me.

Jim Thomason

A THREAT to veto a particular version of a bill is, of course, not the same as actually vetoing the final bill. That such an obvious point escapes you two I guess isn't surprising. Hypocrites indeed.

Kerry knew that that bill was going to pass, and voted against it. Was this for some type of misguided moral point, or was this to make a statement to the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"? I would bet heavily on the 2nd option.

That Kerry, after using this vote to win the nomination, now finds it inconvenient in the general election is just too damn bad. What I believe you SHOULD be asking yourselves, but unfortunately probably never will, is why such a vote gained him the favor of a majority of Democrats and what this says about your party.

Cecil Turner

Besides, this is really not about the vote or the funding issue--it's about clarity. The Candidate's own words ("I actually did vote for . . . before I voted against") betray a tortuously illogical thought process, and a continued attempt to have it both ways on the Iraq war. (And with a quick glance at the debate transcript I see he remains incoherent.) His inability, even with the benefit of hindsight, to take a clear position on the decision to go to war, demonstrates he's utterly unqualified to make such decisions in real time. And there's nothing hypocritical about pointing that out, or asking him what a particular episode of verbal diarrhea was supposed to mean.


Jim, a threat to veto is very significant. If you follow the same line of logic that Bush does in his attacks on Kerry, you would have to ask the questions, "What kind of message does this send to our troops? What kind of message does this send to our enemies?"

One of the points Bush/Cheney tried to make in attacking Kerry on his foolish statement was that the passage of this type of bill not a complicated thing. On the contrary, anyone familiar with the proceedings in Congress knows that all bills like this have their complexities. Bush's threat to veto is one part of that complexity, and once again is an example of the hypocrisy of his campaign.

Yes, Kerry knew the bill was ultimately going to pass. Everyone knew that the money would be provided one way or another. And so Kerry's vote was indeed intended to make a point. This is the type of thing that politicians on both sides of the aisle do on a regular basis. To pull this one Kerry vote out of the context of congressional procedure and try to hammer him with it is certainly hypocrisy. Once again Bush/Cheney is criticizing Kerry for doing something they themselves do. That's called hypocrisy. (See also the criticism of Kerry for using the word 'sensitive,' when just about every Bush Administration official, from Bush through Wolfowitz, has used the same word in the same context. Or consider the attacks on Kerry for voting to cut weapons programs in the 90's, when those cuts, at the end of the Cold War, had bipartisan support. And please remember that those cuts were criticized for being inadequate by then Secretary of Defense Cheney. Kerry is weak on defense? Then Cheney is weaker.)

The big irony on the $87 billion vote is that the position staked out by Kerry and Edwards, pay as you go, is supposed to be the position of the Republicans, a stand for fiscal responsibility.

It is simply naive to believe that this vote was what won Kerry the nomination. What a silly comment.

Cecil, competent analysis has clearly shown that Kerry's position on Iraq has been unwavering. Sure, you can pull a bunch of his quotes out of context and make them seem to show flip-flops, but you could do that with just about anyone if you're clever enough with your cut and paste. What again distinguishes Kerry from Bush in this case is that he acknowledged last night that he did speak unclearly. When has Bush ever been man enough to admit to a mistake? And if you think one verbal gaffe indicates that one is unfit to make decisions in real time, you have a bizarre way of evaluating candidates. A question for you: Do you think sitting, looking like a deer caught in headlights, and reading a book about a goat after being told that United States has suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history, indicates an ability to make decisions in real time? He didn't want to upset the children......

Cecil Turner

"Cecil, competent analysis has clearly shown that Kerry's position on Iraq has been unwavering. Sure, you can pull a bunch of his quotes out of context . . ."

pseudosophist, you can't expect to be taken seriously when you write stuff like that. This isn't quotes taken out of context . . . he can't give a straight answer on even the most basic question: "Would you have gone to war with Iraq?" (And "I would have voted for the authority" is not an answer for a prospective CinC). After a 90-minute debate, I still don't know what he would have done. (Waited? Probably. But how long? And what then?)

I don't see how a competent analysis could possibly conclude Senator Kerry's position on Iraq has been anything other than "utterly incoherent."


...competent analysis has clearly shown that Kerry's position on Iraq has been unwavering.

I think we are all in agreement on this point - Kerry made the politically expedient vote in 2002 in order to position himself for his '04 Presidential race, and then made the politically expedient vote against the funding in order to stave off Howard Dean.

The alternative view - that Kerry had confidence in Bush's diplomacy *after* Kyoto and the ICC, and that Kerry had the sudden notion that, unlike every other war we have fought, this one needed to be pay-as-you-go, is hard to believe.

The comments to this entry are closed.