Mothering Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the <b>liberties</b> the president and his campaign have taken with the <b>facts</b>. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising."<br><br>
More here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3222-2004May30?language=printer" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer</a><br><br>
Good editorial on the subject, which includes this:<br><br>
"This page has already reviewed Bush distortions of Kerry's record on gasoline taxes (he never voted to hike them by 50 cents) and military spending (unfairly selected from omnibus budgets). New ads claim that Kerry wants to repeal wiretaps and other surveillance under the USA Patriot Act. But according to the invaluable factcheck.org, Kerry's actual position "simply does not support what the Bush ad claims." <b>Kerry is cosponsor with five Senate Republicans of a bill to tighten judicial oversight of the Patriot Act.</b> Three of the Republicans are up for reelection this year. <b>Will the Bush campaign run attack ads against them?</b><br><br>
More here:<br><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/06/02/bushs_false_advertising?mode=PF" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...tising?mode=PF</a><br><br>
Link to <a href="http://www.factcheck.org" target="_blank">www.factcheck.org</a>
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">In 1994, Kerry Backed Half-Dollar Increase In Gas Tax. “Kerry said [the Concord Coalition’s scorecard] did not accurately reflect individual lawmakers’ efforts to cut the deficit. ‘It doesn’t reflect my $43 billion package of cuts or my support for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax,’ Kerry said.” (Jill Zuckman, “Deficit-Watch Group Gives High Marks To 7 N.E. Lawmakers,” The Boston</td>
</tr></table></div>

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Two Years Later, Kerry Flip-Flopped. “Kerry no longer supports the 50-cent [gas tax] hike, nor the 25-cent hike proposed by the [Concord] coalition.” (Michael Grunwald, “Kerry Gets Low Mark On Budgeting,” The Boston Globe, 4/30/96)</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http://nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm#50%20Cent" target="_blank">Kerry</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
<a href="http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/05/bush-campaign-lie-51-kerrys-energy.html" target="_blank">http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com...ys-energy.html</a><br><br>
It's lengthy, but I think you will find the above debunked in a very well-documented manner.<br><br>
Joyce in the mts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
SQ, a Kerry Flip-Flop Index?! Is that all you got? Sheesh, you think you GOPers would give up on that lame line by now. Time for this list to be rolled out again YET AGAIN (sorry if some folks have read it already):<br><br><b>Vet's et al. Funding</b><br>
Bush on the campaign trail recent boast about how much his administration had increased spending for these very popular programs--a 40 percent increase in veterans' benefits, for example, and a 60 percent increase in education for his "No Child Left Behind" program.<br><br>
On May 19, the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to all government agencies notifying them of possible spending cuts in the 2006 budget in domestic programs like education, health care and veterans' benefits if Bush is re-elected. (see <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May26.html</a>)<br><br><br><b>OPEC</b><br>
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]<br><br>
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]<br><br><b>New Iraq Funding</b><br>
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]<br><br>
…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]<br><br>
The above new additions from here: <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263" target="_blank">http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=42263</a><br><br>
Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress, and then signed it when it passed:<br><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry022102.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry022102.shtml</a><br><br>
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.<br><br>
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.<br><br>
Bush is against extending the time for the 9/11 commission; then he's for it.<br><br>
Bush won't let Condi Rice testify under oath in front of the 9/11 commission on "principle", which evaporates when politcal heat turns up.<br><br>
Bush wants to limit his and Cheney private testimony before the 9/11 commission to one hour; then he's OK with no time limit.<br><br>
Bush is against initating an outside investigation of the Iraq/WMD intelligence disaster; then he's for it.<br><br>
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it (see Iraq).<br><br>
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.<br><br>
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.<br><br>
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State; then he OK's Sharon's unilateral disengagement in Gaza and blesses keeping West Bank territory.<br><br>
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution:<br><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS....bush.marriage/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS....bush.marriage/</a><br><br>
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't: <a href="http://www.hillnews.com/news/032603/funds.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.hillnews.com/news/032603/funds.aspx</a><br><br>
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he tries to cut benefits: <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?...259-1989240.php" target="_blank">http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?...259-1989240.php</a><br><br>
Bush - "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush - "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.<br><br>
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will.<br><br>
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.<br><br>
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.<br><br>
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.<br><br>
Bush says he's in favor of adding carbon dioxide as a regulated greenhouse gas. Then Bush said it would not be included.<br><br>
Bush was against amnesty for illegal aliens. Now he's for it.<br><br>
Bush was against Presidents doing an end run around Congress to pack the courts. Then he did it.<br><br>
Bush said the Iraq war would cost $3 billion. Then he asked for 87 billion.<br><br>
Bush - We need to go to war with Iraq because their WMDs pose a direct threat to the United States. Bush - We needed to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people!<br><br>
Bush - We have found WMDs: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html</a><br>
Bush - Er, never mind: <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=28200" target="_blank">http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=28200</a><br><br>
Bush implemented No Child Left Behind, then underfunded it and has now frosted Republican governors: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/educat...hild-usat_x.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/educat...hild-usat_x.htm</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Once again, this whole 'flip-flopping' thing ignores the context of decisions, and as such is a bunch of bunko. If you want to discuss 1996 politics let's see: who was the originator of the 1996 Senate gas tax repeal bill? Phil Gramm (a Republican). Kerry consistently shows support of fiscally responsible legislation, even if it's introduced by Republicans, and even if it pisses off some of his Democratic buddies. That's called bi-partisanship. Way to go, Kerry!<br><br>
Since we're quoting the Concord Coalition, let's see what they have to say about Bush's budget policy:<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Americans face a growing mismatch between what we are scheduled to pay to government and what we expect government to deliver in return... no one would advocate a federal budget that taxes at 18 percent of GDP and spends at 30 percent. This would shatter the economy. Yet, this is precisely the long-term future upon which we are now embarked.</td>
</tr></table></div>
And later:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Politicians should face up to the fact that with a future of endless deficits, you have to cut spending before you cut taxes.</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http://www.concordcoalition.org/keyquestions/04keyqtext.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.concordcoalition.org/keyq...04keyqtext.pdf</a>
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top