Hey Alley, you said in a previous post that you can' t let Kerry go for his flip-flops. Well, I just read an article at FoxNews.com (all of the Conservatives approve, I am sure) and Bush has a laundry list of flip-flops. Check it out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132189,00.aspx

Here are some excerpts.:

— In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He' s done both in Iraq.

— He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

— He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

— Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

— Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

— A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Usama bin Laden " dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, " I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

" I' m a war president," Bush told NBC' s " Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: " Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein' s weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it' s a safer America and a safer world.

" No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said last week in Missouri.

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act (search) restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDS in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials.

I knew from the beginning and agreed that neither candidate was perfect, didn' t I? Since Bush is currently still president, he might be under foreign pressure, fear of worse foreign/national matters if the same position is maintained. For example, he might have changed position on the Clean Air Act because if he continued, the air would be less clean. Kerry, meanwhile, is under no such pressure. He, as you guys posted, flip-flopped to appeal to the masses. So, if he flip-flops that much before he might be president, how can you trust him when he IS president?

I admit Bush mispoke on thinking if the war can be won or not, but the same thing was probably on his mind. Since the US is fighting a NETWORK of terrorists, then yes, I too would wonder if I can win the war in an approximate amount of time short enough to answer yes or no in front of the media.
Anyways, if both flip-flops, still I would go with the one I share similar positions with. Bush shares my faith, shares my view on same-sex marriage, on the war, ect.

About North Korea, the Bush administration will have to discuss weapons agreements because of what happened recently: a 2-mile mushroom cloud after a bomb test.

Fair enough.

It is just funny that the Conservatives attack a candidate for changing his opinion, but their guy flip-flops on decisions as the President. A huge double standard.

Yes, that is my bad side, but as I' ve posted

Since Bush is currently still president, he might be under foreign pressure, fear of worse foreign/national matters if the same position is maintained.

Being president means making decisions, IMPORTANT decisions that affects many things. Sometimes you just have to change views (as Joe posted people can change) to make better decisions as president; that is better than changing views to appeal to the masses NOT as president.

True, true. But it is still weak.

Both guys are making changing their views when new information arises or when circumstances change. Bush is going back and forth to get elected too and appeal to the masses. (the 360 on the war on " terrah" . One day it can' t be won, and the next day, we will be victorious).

I just think that it sucks because people love Bush because they say that he sticks to his guns, he is decisive, he is not wish-washy. But when the evidence points otherwise, he is just making hard decisions and hard choices.

The media reinforces it. When the Kerry flip-flop stuff was going on - it was everywhere. Here is a laundry list of Bush flip-flops and no one talks about it.

The same thing with the Swift Boat stuff. Kerry' s past was dragged through the mud for weeks on some stories that guys were telling that were the opposite of every document. With the Bush National Guard stuff, the big story is not Bush' s service, but Dan Rather' s reputation.

The media believes some Republican funded slugs and tells that story, but Dan Rather is suspect. The story should be that Bush has to answer to these allegations, not where did Rather get the documents. No one is asking Bush is this true. Give me an f' ing break.

So do either of you think the fake 60 Minutes documents will harm Kerry or have no effect? I don' t think Kerry has ever commented on the documents even when they were believed to be true. It' s interesting to think that Republicans were behind the documents and therefore would know exactly what to look for in order to prove them as fake. This would have the potential of making the entire Kerry campain look extremely bad and desparate. It' s almost genius, if that is the case. But then again maybe not. I don' t think Kerry' s poll numbers have dropped much if at all since those documents were proven fake.

I think that Kerry will do what Bush did with the Swift Boat guys. Stay away from it and get all of the benefit of the scandal.

They say that Karl Rove could be the architect of all of this though. It is possible because the man has done some shaddy things for the Bushies. It is a strategy because it envelopes so much scandal around the documents authenticity, the fact that Bush was AWOL is a moot one. Read this excerpt about Rove:

First, Rove and his little buddy had to beat off a surprise primary challenge from charismatic war hero John McCain, whose sacrifices in a military prison camp in Vietnam looked all the more impressive against Bush' s no-show National Guard travesty. Rove conducted a whisper-campaign to spread sleaze, pushing ridiculous allegations, such as that McCain was a stoolie while imprisoned in Vietnam. Rove was reputedly the brains behind a sleazy e-mail forward that alleged McCain had fathered an illegitimate black daughter, a lie which was " proven" by actual pictures of McCain with his black daughter, whom he had actually adopted.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/karl-rove/

True, true. But it is still weak.

What is still weak?
Bush' s bad sides are being hidden from public view more than Kerry' s bad side, Beef Shala. I' m a Bushler, so I would take that as good news for Bush and the rest of Bushlers in America. Anyhow, Kerry' s open bad side to the public is very deserving to him. Being the antiwar spokesperson is the worst position a soldier coming back from Vietnam can be. That is a disgrace to all those who were fighting and those who had given their life over there. That is why the majority of Vietnamese news and people are opposing him. There is also the fact that Kerry voted against a bill that would provide freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. for ' nam. How can the ' nam people not hate him? He' s basically a traitor to them.

There is talk about his " self-inflicted" wounds so he could get out of ' nam sooner. Then he opposed the war so he doesn' t have to go back. Well, at least that' s what the ' nam people think, since they were a main part of the war.

Anyways, the war record of Bush will not affect him more than Kerry' s record has and will.

60 Minutes is wrong. They admitted it, Dan Rather apologized. What else do you want?

anyone know when the debate will be?

Here' s a CNN.com article about the upcoming debates...

Stakes high heading into debates
Kerry, Bush face-to-face for first time
By Greg Botelho - CNN
Monday, September 27, 2004 Posted: 9:10 AM EDT (1310 GMT)


Kerry and Bush debate three times prior to the November 2 election.

SPECIAL REPORT

• The Candidates: Bush | Kerry
• The Issues
• The Money
• The Polls
• Timeline
• Special Report

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
America Votes 2004

John F. Kerry

George W. Bush

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?


(CNN) -- The presidential debates present both opportunity and peril for the two top candidates, with Sen. John Kerry hoping a strong performance spurs a decisive rally and President Bush aiming to seal his re-election.

The Democratic and Republican nominees meet three times in 13 days, the first 90-minute forum beginning Thursday at 9 p.m. in Coral Gables, Florida. Their respective running mates, Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney, will debate on October 5 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Most national polls show Bush sporting a job approval rating around 50 percent and clinging to a small, but not insurmountable lead. Five weeks before November 2, both candidates hope the debates boost their standing in one of the most contentious campaigns in decades.

" At their most influential, debates probably move public opinion only a few percentage points. But that can be critical," said University of Alabama political science professor David Lanoue. " This year is close to being the perfect storm for presidential debates having an effect."

" Something has to happen to break one guy loose," added Alan Schroeder, author of " Televised Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV" and a professor of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. " The only thing left, barring some major world event, is the debates."

Days ahead of the Florida forum, the campaigns and the Commission on Presidential Debates continued to hammer out details -- many of which, such as strict limits on how the candidates and the audience can interact, seemed intended to minimize surprises.

Still, millions will see the debates on live television -- which, by definition, is spontaneous -- heightening the prospects of tension, gaffes and raw exhibitions of candidates' character, communication ability and expertise under fire.

" They are the most unscripted thing on the campaign trail, which isn' t to say they' re totally unscripted," Schroeder said. " Above all else, presidential debates are a form of television."

The stakes are particularly high for Kerry, target of frequent -- and, experts say, successful -- GOP characterization as a slippery politician ill-prepared to lead in a dangerous world.

" The debates give him an excellent opportunity to break through the noise with no filters, no reporters, no spin doctors, just John Kerry," Lanoue said.

Onus on Kerry
After scoring a negligible poll bounce from his party' s convention in July, Kerry lost momentum as his actions during and after the Vietnam War dominated headlines in August. Bush opened up a lead after the GOP convention, which lauded the president' s leadership in the war against terrorism and tied the Iraq conflict to that fight.

Based on state polling as of last Thursday and interviews with campaign insiders and political analysts, a CNN survey found that Bush would win 301 electoral votes to Kerry' s 237. But while Bush enters the week as the front-runner, some polls show the gap narrowing in recent days.

While most political experts agree Kerry is down, few count him out -- especially with the debates coming up.

" If he can answer questions about being a flip-flopper, show that he will be strong fighting terrorism, show he has a plan and will stick to it -- more than any sound-bite or witticism, that could make a difference in this election," said Lanoue, co-author of " The Joint Press Conference," a book about presidential debates.

The debates mark the first time Kerry will match up face-to-face with Bush, a fact that has elevated lower-profile candidates in the past, like Sen. John F. Kennedy in 1960. (Full story)

Experts say that, whereas Bush is a known quantity to voters, Kerry can use the debates to portray himself as a trustworthy, cogent and empathetic figure.

" How you look saying something matters," said Bruce DuMont, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and president of the Museum of Broadcast Communications. " Kerry has to look warmer, fuzzier, more comfortable and more likable."

David Birdsell, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York, said Kerry needs to focus on combating the " flip-flopper" label by showing he can explain himself in " clear, succinct and available terms" as an appealing alternative to Bush.

" You can' t just say I' m a trustworthy guy, you have to show it," said Birdsell, co-author of " Presidential Debates." " He' s got to be the same John Kerry in the first through the third debate, making that consistency part of his trustworthiness appeal."

Bush also faces serious questions heading into the debates. Democrats, led by Kerry, have called him out-of-touch with what is happening in Iraq and with the economic, health care and other problems facing millions of Americans.

Birdsell said Bush needs to show humility, compassion -- especially for U.S. soldiers -- and expertise on policy during the debates, while trying to reinforce his perceived advantage, according to polls, on national security and foreign policy issues.

" Until now, Bush' s approach has been defensive: We are a nation at war, and we can' t afford a change," Birdsell said. " And lately, people seem to agree with him."

But Lanoue says the onus is on Kerry to prove he can be a resolute, clear-minded leader.

" If the challenger can' t answer those concerns the public has, voters will go for the devil they know," he said.

Intense spotlight
Birdsell says campaign activity may slow down appreciably in the next two weeks, as both sides concentrate on preparing for the debates and managing reaction to them.

" The expectations game can make a lot of difference," said Birdsell, noting that the media often key in on the candidate who outperforms or underperforms expectations. " But people are looking at what the campaigns say much more skeptically this year."

In fact, the spin began weeks ago, with Kerry staffers insisting Bush has never lost a debate and top GOP strategist Matthew Dowd favorably comparing the senator to the Roman orator and statesman Cicero.

If history is any indication, tens of millions will closely watch the debates, with many more hearing about them through the prism of radio, television news and print publications.

In 1976, President Ford' s comment during his debate with then-Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter that the Soviets did not dominate Eastern Europe received extensive -- and decidedly negative -- play in the media.

The media similarly highlighted Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis' detached response in 1988 about what he' d do if his wife were raped, and President George H.W. Bush' s eyeing his watch during a 1992 " town hall" forum. In 2000, the media focused on Vice President Al Gore' s sighs -- a sign of condescension, some said -- in his first debate with George W. Bush.

Such history lessons likely won' t be lost on Bush or Kerry.

" For all the candidates, the main imperative is not to make a mistake, because mistakes have traditionally really resounded in the post-debate coverage," Schroeder said.

In an already tight campaign and amid intense media scrutiny, candidates must also try to look comfortable and ideally likable in the debates -- plainly explaining complex stances, critiquing their foes and exhibiting warmth, all in a brief period.

" The electorate gets to see these guys on a tightrope," Schroeder said. " That' s a good test because, as president, you' re always under pressure."

This is the guy folks want back in office:

http://imaginationz.homestead.com/files/sovereignty.mov

so, how do you all think the first debate came out to be? I admit Kerry seemed more serious...Bush could' ve done better.

Pretty good. There' s a whole ' nuther thread on that. I know you' d like to keep politicsin one thread, though. TOO LATE!

no no Joe, haha...I think it would' ve been more appropriate for the debate issues to be in this thread, since this whole thread is all about politics and it was designed for discussions about the two sides which were in the debate, exactly what I titled my thread. Whoever opened a new thread must have overlooked this thread. My thread actually covers more than just the debate, but everything else related to Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards, no wonder it made it to page 8
. Can' t we all just get along?

Whoever opened a new thread must have overlooked this thread.

Or perhaps they wanted to focus soley on the debate, just like there is another thread focusing soley on homo-marraige.

I have found a new way to measure Bush' s popularity...and it doesn' t look good for him - take a look!



LOL!!!

Is anyone else annoyed by the words " Flip Flop" ...

Even before this political stuff I just hated that phrase for some reason.

Yeah, but when you have a limited vocabulary, it' s the best you can do.

I think the Bush campaign wants it to sound annoying.

I was glad Bush presented better than his last debate. Today, he seems more confident, more prepared, more organized. Kerry did well in both debates, I didn' t see any change in his presentation, maybe that' s because he didn' t need change because he started off solid in the first debate. There are some little funny things I noticed: Bush flicked his left eye when Kerry spoke, people said Bush scowled, and ....well, Kerry just looked sleepy because of the look of his eyes [:' (].

What do you all think about the snap polls? The medias say they are not scientific, participation could be from a majority of 1 political group; namely Reps and Dems, and that people could have voted as many times as they wanted.

Polls are very unscientific. We have two papers here in Denver and on Friday' s front page one of them said Kerry had a big lead and the other paper said Bush had the big lead. Looking at different polls, the numbers are al over the map. The only thing the polls can really tell us is that the race is really close. I wonder why that is. No matter who you are siding with, the other half of the country CAN' T be completely stupid.

Bush did indeed do better than he did last time in the second debate. At some points he seemed really angry, though. At one point he completely interrupted the moderator to go off on an angry rant. Other times he seemed a bit confused when the moderator was trying to tell/ask him something, and he kept trying to speak at the same time as the moderator.