[eDebate] "Suppress the Detroit Vote"
GOPAlan81 at aol.com
Thu Jul 29 11:21:07 CDT 2004
Frist off, yes Bush only served 6 years as Governor. Though, he also worked for his father when he was President for four years. He also had something that Obama does not, a family name that instantly earns credibility as well as connections.
Second, Bush decisions should not be considered flip-flopping, because of two different reasons. One, his position changes are not as clear as Kerry's because he does not have a lengthy voting since he never served in congress. To go along with this argument it is also important to understand that the only way they can pin-point these "so called flip flops" is by looking at quoates taking from his mouth. Meaning there is less statements to go by showing Bush as a flip-flopper. Meanwhile Kerry has spoken on other bills on the senate floor numerous times, as well as the fact that his voting record clearly shows his change in positions. Also, Bush's position changes are more so shifts rather than flip-flops, meaning that the political climate changed causing him to make different decisions. Kerry has flip-flopped on isssues such as abortion, gun rights, privacy issues, an military funding. These issues are highly controversial, and more clearly define one's political affiliation. Whether or not a candidate is for or against a Homeland security dept. is not a voting issue for a voter. Furthermore, the point that Bush changed his position on the 9/11 Commission will be totally unimportant if he implements some if not most of the changes the commission encouraged.
Alan "Ja" Rubin
In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:08:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Christopher Cooper <ccooper at planning.org> writes:
>Listen...no one on this list could accuse me of being gung-ho about John
>Kerry. ?But FLIP-FLOPPING on issues is another GOP trope.
>I don't understand why BUSH isn't seen as the biggest flip-flopper around:
>1) First he was against the Department of Homeland Security...then he was
>2) First he was against the 9/11 commission...then he was for it.
>3) First he was against the Senate bill to provide additional funding for
>the Iraq troops...then he was for it.
>4) First he was against internationalizing the reconstruction effort in
>Iraq...then he was for it.
>The reason there is so little difference now in how the Democrats and
>Republicans would proceed in Iraq is because after almost 2 years, Bush has
>finally adopted essentially the plan the Democrats have been advocating.
>But this President's learning curve takes too long and cost too many lives.
>From: GOPAlan81 at aol.com [mailto:GOPAlan81 at aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 11:52 AM
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Suppress the Detroit Vote"
>As a debater of Frank's I must agree with his assessment that Kerry does not
>distinguish himself as being any better or more effective than Bush. The
>only thing he has been effective at doing is marrying into money, and
>flip-flopping on issues.
>Also, Obama would be a good candidate for President, eventually. John
>Edwards showed this past year that u can't run for the Presidency after only
>serving in office for six years. A Presidential candidate need to have
>connections with the right people, which along with experience takes longer
>to produce. I think Obama would stand a better chance running in 2016. Why
>so late u ask? The reason is that 2008 and 2012 have Bill Frist written all
>over it. Yeah heard it hear first, Bill Frist will replace Bush as President
>in 2008. Yes, Bush will still be in office this year, because Kerry has
>about as much of a chance of winning the election than Bronze Medal Winner
>at the Special Olympics in 100m race has of beating Maurice Greene.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Alan Rubin
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
More information about the Mailman