New Kerry Campaign Slogan

[dude1394]

I predict he may be saying this a lot.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

[Drbio]

*hahaha*

[Mavdog]

The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...

This is such BS. This is not how the Senate works.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The comment is right, he voted for the bill in its earlier form.

That's the problem with using a legislator's votes on specific bills to label them. In early roll calls they vote yes, then there are amendments and such added that make their vote change.

In this instance, kerry wanted to see where the money was coming from. Without commensurate cuts elsewhere, or a repeal of a portion of the tax cuts scheduled for this year, he would not vote to authorize the additional spending.

Who would have predicted that the demo candidate would be the fiscal conservative in this presidential race? Yet he is...

You are durn right the statement is correct. And that's why it's so stupid. Here he is bashing bush for sending guys "unprepared" and the one chance he has to fix it he votes against it.

Then THIS is his explanation. The dude is toast.

And kerry being a fiscal conservative is another load of bull. Go look at his latest proposal. He intends to spend an extra 400 billion and pay for it by raising taxes and extra 200 billion.

As usual the dims and libs have to lie their way through the election until they get in office so they can change once they get there. Even if he said he was going to cut the size of government by 50% all of the libs would stand up and cheer because they would know good and well that's he doesn't mean it.

Here is the most liberal senator from Massachusetts and of course he has to run away from his record because no one will vote in an ultra-liberal. The dimocrat party has no agenda except buying votes. It's been that way since JFK.

[Mavdog]

this is such BS. This is not how the Senate works

Really Dooby? Just how does it "work" then?

Perhaps you'd like to read kerry's position on the vote:

"The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies. I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.

The Administration has wasted every opportunity to build an international coalition in Iraq.

With our soldiers dying on a daily basis, the President needs to change course. But rather than putting in place a real plan, he has spent months drifting and zigzagging. Rather than immediately building a real coalition, he has fought to keep unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. Rather than asking for shared sacrifice from Americans - as Senator Biden and I have proposed, he has refused to repeal any of his tax cut for the wealthiest to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Our troops are paying the highest price - and America's hard working families shouldn't have to subsidize President Bush’s failure or line the pockets of corporations like Halliburton trying to make a fast buck in Iraq.

America's national security requires a muscular strategy that brings freedom and prosperity to post-war Iraq, stability to the region, and advances our basic values and ideals. And I will gladly and proudly vote for any proposal this President offers that protects the troops and provides an effective plan to win the peace.

But I oppose spending $87 billion - at the expense of health care, education and domestic priorities here at home - on a strategy that does not protect the troops, and does not make America safer."

or how about a news article discussing the amendments added:

" WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (AFP) - The Republican-dominated US Senate Friday overwhelmingly approved President George W. Bush's supplemental budget request for 85 billion dollars to finance military deployment and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate's 87-12 vote followed a 303-125 approval of the measure earlier in the day in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with 74 Democrats crossing party lines to vote for the bill.

The Senate late Thursday night had watered down Bush's request with an amendment requiring Baghdad to pay back half of the 20.3 billion dollars earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction.

On Friday, prior to passing the bill, it trimmed another 1.9 billion dollars with an amendment cutting expenses it deemed unnecessary, including creation of a postal code system for Iraq and construction of a 50, 000-dollar-a-bed prison.

The House voted down amendments that would have created reconstruction loans to Iraq.

However, it did make cuts totalling 1.9 billion dollars to the reconstruction funds, but transferred the money to the military side, and to Afghan aid and indemnification of hurricane Isabel damage to military bases on the US East Coast.

The bulk of the allocation, some 66 billion dollars destined to finance military deployment, went largely uncontested. However the 20.3 billion for reconstruction of war-torn Iraq was the object of tense debate in both houses.

The two versions of the measure now go to a House-Senate reconciliation committee to iron out the differences and produce a single bill."

So, it is clear that there ARE multiple votes on bills, and a Senator can vote both FOR a bill and then AGAINST a bill in a later form.

[Dooby]

He voted against it. Period. End of story. Good night. Coincidentally, isno

There is only one role call vote. He voted against it. That is the vote that counts. Kerry was one of twelve senators to vote against it. This is that ridiculous vote where, Kerry after voting for the war and seeing that Dean was getting a ton of mileage from the anti-war position, started drifting that way. So he voted against it so he could gain traction in the primary. He needs to learn to live with that. What you say and do in the primary comes back in the general election. It is a fact of life.

Of course it is also funny that Kerry bothered to show up. I guess it was because he got to vote on Iraq. He only missed 64% of all rollcall votes in 2003. BTW, in 2004, he hasn't bothered to show up for a single rollcall vote (0 for 22). This little dig is going to pop up soon as GOP spin on that subject-that Dole had the decency to resign from the Senate, while Kerry continues to earn a paycheck.

This is also the stupid vote where the Dems' thought it would be clever to make the rebuilding of Iraq into the form of loans. Nevermind, that for accounting purposes, the GBO and the CBO would each have written off the loan immediately for federal accounting purposes; never mind that the loans, assuming they were repaid, would be done so out of oil exports, which would have been a PR disaster for the USA; and nevermind that everybody knows we would have been asked to forgive the loans in 10 years anyway.

Edit: my mistake, Kerry did make 1 vote 2 weeks ago and has missed 2 more (1 for 25 now).

[madape]

Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: madape
Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?

No. Senators miss votes all the time. I wish they didn't, but they do. To say Kerry was AWOL would be an indictment of about half the senate. But 64% is an awful lot.

Of course, I never worked for the Senate, just the house. The congressman I worked for never missed a vote during his term while I worked there. And there are a lot more house votes than senate votes.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: madape
Dooby, are you suggesting that Kerry has gone AWOL from his senate duties?

I got it ape. I wonder if the media will insist that he release all of his records. Where WAS he when all those votes were taken.

[Dooby]

Mavdog, you don't get to say Kerry is a fiscal conservative. That is a term with a specific connotation. If you want to say Kerry is more "fiscally responsible", that is fine. We can debate that. But the notion that Kerry is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

Semantics? Yes. But it drives me nuts.

[Mavdog]

dooby, if you feel that there are "specific connotation" to being a fiscal conservative, how does the Bush budget's stack up with that "connotation"?

from what I see, he isn't quite walking the walk...

BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on![img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
dooby, if you feel that there are "specific connotation" to being a fiscal conservative, how does the Bush budget's stack up with that "connotation"?

from what I see, he isn't quite walking the walk...

BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on![img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

Long, rambling rant follows:

IMO, about half of everything the President does is a no-brainer. Regardless of who is in office, you are going to get the same result. Example: Clinton campaign in 92 in his stump speech and position papers that the USA could make due with two less carriers and suggested either mothballing the two oldest or cancelling the contract on 2 that were unbuilt; after he won, a nice little briefing from the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs and the existing nat'l security advisor was arranged for Clinton and his skeleton crew of a cabinet. Clinton walked out of that meeting scrapping the idea of eliminating two carrier groups. Why? Because at a fundamental level, the idea was idiocy. That is one example.

Another is Nafta; Bush's state department negotiated it (over the objections of half his base), Clinton pushed it through (over the objections of half his base). Why? Cause it was really a no-brainer. Despite its problems, nobody in office is willing to say it should be repealed.

Another: Reagan was against turning over the Panama canal, as Carter promised to do. He campaigned on it. After election, Reagan backpedaled. Why? Because the people in the government that are smarter than the people that come and go, went to Reagan and his people and said that the Canal cost too much money and was of no strategic value because (i) too risky to move an aircraft carrier through it; and (ii) an supertanker won't fit through it.

The point is this: After 9/11, no matter who was President (even Nader)(OK, maybe not Nader, but I do think Perot would do it), we were going to return to deficit spending. It was inevitable. It was probably inevitable regardless of 9/11 in the short term.

So I don't fault Bush for deficit spending, though I abhor the deficit and abhor the national debt. Truth of the matter is that if Gore were president, instead of cutting taxes, he'd have "temporarily committed to deficit spending to get through this trying time in our history." We are not running a deficit solely because of the tax cuts, a big chunk of it is the spending that Kerry voted for, too.

So, who am I voting for? Well that is for the other 50%-the part of the presidency that isn't a no-brainer. The difference between Clinton launching a couple of cruise missiles and Kerry's opinion on the war on terror being "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation" and Bush sending troops to Afghanistan. Clinton launched some missiles and hit nothing and put a sheik in jail for 240 years, and less than 10 years later, the same people blew up the same people, killing thousands more than the first attempt.

[dude1394]

GREATNESS!!! I just saw the Presidents Ad highlighting the Kerry vote against supporting our troops food, material needs in Iraq. They have edited it already and what is on the end.

And what does John Kerry have to say about it
""I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

Pretty nimble!! Greatness.

No waiting for the NYTimes for Kerry or the LATimes for Kerry to put it in their papers.

[Mavdog]

Actually he had a couple of "chances" to vote for additional $ for Iraq. Some were yes votes, some were no votes. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned using Senate votes as campaign fodder. Very problematic as it isn't a clear vote most times due to the baggage of amendments.

I don't disagre that BOTH Bush and Kerry are proposing more goverment spending...what is interesting is that Kerry has stated where he's going to come up with the $ to balance the spending. Bush hasn't, hence he is abandoning the traditional conservative platform of fiscal responsibility.

As far as "buying votes", that tradition goes back to Jefferson when they were called the Democratic-Republican Party. Both the parties play that game...

[Drbio]

Waffles anyone?

[Drbio]

BTW your avatar may violate my cos. sexual sensitivity regs...I have to minimze every thread your post is on! [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

Perhaps your company isn't receiving a full effort from you then? I know a certain senator with the same problem.

[dude1394]

You go Dooby!!!

[Mavdog]

The point is this: After 9/11, no matter who was President (even Nader)(OK, maybe not Nader, but I do think Perot would do it), we were going to return to deficit spending. It was inevitable. It was probably inevitable regardless of 9/11 in the short term.

I'm not totally on board with your conclusion.

The increase in federal spending resulting from 9/11 were primarily a) the invasion of Afganistan and b) the forming and staffing of the D of Homeland Security. The War was not very costly due to the short battle time and also because we had an intl coalition who shared and continue to share the costs. The creation of a new federal dept is the major expense and IMHO the funds should have been sourced from existing appropriations in other depts who previously had the responsibility. This was not done as the existing depts stayed fully funded while addl money was spent, and at the same time revenues were decreased due to the tax changes/rebates.

Now, don't get me wrong, we need to spend the $ to be as fully capable of defending us domestically as needed to accomplish the goal. We need to see a belt tightening in current spending in other depts. that just wasn't addressed, and the feds need to rescend portions of the tax cuts programmed for the next couple of years.

That would be fiscally conservative in my book.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'm not totally on board with your conclusion.

The increase in federal spending resulting from 9/11 were primarily a) the invasion of Afganistan and b) the forming and staffing of the D of Homeland Security. The War was not very costly due to the short battle time and also because we had an intl coalition who shared and continue to share the costs. The creation of a new federal dept is the major expense and IMHO the funds should have been sourced from existing appropriations in other depts who previously had the responsibility. This was not done as the existing depts stayed fully funded while addl money was spent, and at the same time revenues were decreased due to the tax changes/rebates.

Now, don't get me wrong, we need to spend the $ to be as fully capable of defending us domestically as needed to accomplish the goal. We need to see a belt tightening in current spending in other depts. that just wasn't addressed, and the feds need to rescend portions of the tax cuts programmed for the next couple of years.

That would be fiscally conservative in my book.

Oh, I agree. That would fiscally conservative in my book. But, quite frankly, nobody would have gone for it. You can't cut justice by a fifth and turn over all border patrol and INS activity to Homeland Security; you can't just split the FBI in two-terrorist and non-terrorist. It isn't just that Homeland Security has taken over responsibility, it is the added responsibility-federalized all airline security, costing millions and adding 5% to the federal payroll (a guess); hell, we used to check maybe 1 in 200 cargo containers, if that.

Plus, don't forget we bailed out the airlines to a great extent. And we are still spending millions in Afghanastan.

[dude1394]

March 19 — In an interview several weeks before he voted against $87 billion in funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seemed to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops.

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

[dude1394]

Flip-flopper

Murdering’ troops?
What could Kerry have meant?


BACK IN 1971, John Kerry said that 200,000 Vietnamese a year were “murdered by the United States of America.” Now he says he didn’t mean “murdered” and wasn’t referring to U.S. soldiers. Well then, what in the world did he mean?

After accessing transcripts of testimony Kerry gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, The Boston Globe reported Kerry’s “murdered” comment last Thursday. The paper also reported that Kerry claimed to have flown to Paris and “talked with both delegations at the peace talks,” clearly giving the impression that he was in some way involved in the Paris peace negotiations.

Now Kerry says his Paris trip was a private affair with his wife, and he only met the Vietnamese for a few minutes. But back in 1971 he wanted people to think the trip was of some significance. The claim is reminiscent of Kerry’s more recent boasts that he has talked with world leaders who want Bush out of office and that he had a close friend in Massachusetts who heard on good authority that Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped. Kerry has a habit of claiming that he is privy to inside information, then backing off when questioned about such boasts.

But back to his charge that the United States was murdering 200,000 Vietnamese a year. Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Globe that Kerry “never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam.” If he wasn’t referring to the United States military, then who in the world could he have meant? The USO?

Either the 1971 John Kerry was lying, or the 2004 John Kerry is lying — or both. We think both.

[Mavdog]

If this period of Kerry's life is germaine to the present candidacy as you must feel it is, to be consistent the same examination should be undertaken on just what GWBush was doing at that stage of his life.

Are you for investigating like that? Shall we spend time discussing any rumored DWIs and that Natl Guard service?

I don't believe so, that was in their youth, but evidently you see it as important. You're not going to be hypocritical are you?

[dude1394]

Are you honestly saying that bush's earlier life hasn't been put through a microscope. But yea if he was calling american soldiers murderers all the while touting out his vietnam credentials then sure his record is pertinent. If he didn't tell us how important his time in vietnam was every third sentence them possibly there wouldn't be nearly as much interest.

I guess it's dirty politics to reprint someones statements. The dims would certainly LIKE for that to be true this election.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Are you honestly saying that bush's earlier life hasn't been put through a microscope.

It's been looked at and it has also been shielded.

But yea if he was calling american soldiers murderers all the while touting out his vietnam credentials then sure his record is pertinent. If he didn't tell us how important his time in vietnam was every third sentence them possibly there wouldn't be nearly as much interest.

The atmosphere in America was different 30 years ago, the war made extremists on both sides. Kerry most likely was referring to the massive loss of life, including those from american ordinance.

Looking at what they said that long ago doesn't really say much about their thoughts of today. For instance, we know that 30 years ago GWBush was an unmotivated so called party guy. Does that mean he's not a serious, conservative person today?

I guess it's dirty politics to reprint someones statements. The dims would certainly LIKE for that to be true this election.

No one said anything about "dirty", just unimportant. I did say that if you throw out Kerry's conduct or comments from 30 years ago, don't cry when GWBush's history is hung out there for target practice.

[dude1394]

Bush's record has been scrubbed and everything he's done from a dui ~20 years ago to "supposed" drug use to "supposed" awol has been run up the flag for the last 8 years. (4 in texas and another 4 now).

It's convenient that you say the atmosphere is america was different with respect to his radical anti-american opinions but it's somehow relevant when he can (and does constantly) wrap himself up in his service then. But it's typical kerry wanting it both ways.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Bush's record has been scrubbed and everything he's done from a dui ~20 years ago to "supposed" drug use to "supposed" awol has been run up the flag for the last 8 years. (4 in texas and another 4 now).

It's convenient that you say the atmosphere is america was different with respect to his radical anti-american opinions but it's somehow relevant when he can (and does constantly) wrap himself up in his service then. But it's typical kerry wanting it both ways.

Ironic that you use the term "scrubbed" which connotes a cleaning, which is most likely exactly what has happened to those records of long ago. I remain of the opinion that each candidate's past is merely interesting rather than important.

The phraseology of "radical anti-american opinions" takes me back to the days of vietnam protests. The quotes are not "radical" nor are they "anti-american". Yeah, there were those misguided folk who proclaimed "America love it or leave it" (now THAT'S "anti-american" in my book) to silence the dissent of those who truly love their country enough to speak out when the country's leadership was taking our country down the wrong road. This was certainly the case in the Vietnam conflict and those who spoke out, such as Kerry, deserve our thanks for showing what a democracy is all about.

Kerry put his life at risk in that war; he, like anyone else who was ready to give his life to their country, has earned the right to "wrap himself up in his service" if he so chooses.

[dude1394]

Great new T-Shirt aligning with Kerry's campaign slogan.

[Mavdog]

the photo of kerry in a keffiyeh is interesting. I guess that you'd find a photo of GWBush in a nazi hat just as funny, right?

[dude1394]

Well quite frankly I'm not sure what a "keffiyeh" is but if you are saying that this is the same as putting bush=hitler and bush-nazi on the peacenik signs I don't agree with you. Unless it is your opinion that all arabs wearing the "keffiyeh" are worse than hitler and the nazis?? Not really sure if I agree with your comparison.

[Mavdog]

Well quite frankly I'm not sure what a "keffiyeh" is but if you are saying that this is the same as putting bush=hitler and bush-nazi on the peacenik signs I don't agree with you. Unless it is your opinion that all arabs wearing the "keffiyeh" are worse than hitler and the nazis?? Not really sure if I agree with your comparison.

The keffiyeh is the Palestinian headress that was put onto the photo of Kerry. I'm making an assumption here but Kerry has probably NEVER had one on. This is what Arafat always wears, and also the PLO etc. So the intention of the graphic is to tie Kerry to Arafat, as a "brother" of Arafat/PLO by way of the headress. Get it?

The analogy is that most of America sees Arafat as a terrorist, a killer of innocent people. That's similar to showing Bush with Hitler (as was shown on this site a week or so ago) or a Nazi cap. I'm not suggesting who is the "worse", that's not the point at all.

So, I'm guessing that since you see the Kerry graphic as acceptable and funny, the same treatment of Bush would be just as acceptable and funny, right? There's nothing wrong with putting a Nazi cap on Bush's photo, right?

[Dooby]

Great line from the NRC yesterday. Kerry challenged Bush to debates and the Bush campaing pointed out that it is a little early for that. But an RNC spokesman suggested that Kerry go on television and debate with himself over his contradictory positions.

[dude1394]

I'm not quite so sure that Yaser Arafats "reputation" is quite the same as hitlers. I don't remember hitler getting the Nobel Peace Prize. We could maybe equate Yaser with Jimmy Carter I guess since they are both recipients.

[Mavdog]

Trying to avoid the question eh? Picking at degrees of infamy doesn't hide the hypocracy.

[dude1394]

I "understand" your point, I just don't agree that an arab headress has the same connotation. If it was a picture of kerry wearing an explosive vest I would agree with you. But it's a subtle dig and I see it as a dig at Kerry who would probably be the favorite candidate of most arab countries right now because they feel he would be weak on terrorism as well as lenient on other arab regimes.

If you think that is the same as holding up a bush=hitler sign then ok, I do not.

[Mavdog]

I see it as a dig at Kerry who would probably be the favorite candidate of most arab countries right now because they feel he would be weak on terrorism as well as lenient on other arab regimes

yeah, those Saudis are really upset with GWBush. He just got rid of their enemy, and he did it without the Saudis having to pay for it.
The Kuwaitis? they hated Hussein, and then they get to profit selling (and overcharging us too) the US goods.
The Gulf States? Well, we now lease a naval base/intelligence base from them and there's all those US service people spending $ there.
Egypt? they got a big bump in aid for overflights.
Iran? they aren't Arabs.
Syria? They hate all of us.

Seems that the Arab countries have done just fine under George, I believe they support his re-election so the gravy train stays on track!

[dude1394]

Kerry and the Communists
By Cliff Kincaid
April 6, 2004

We have been wondering how the major media would handle Senator John Kerry’s cordial relations with the communist Sandinistas who once ruled Nicaragua. Now we have our answer. The March 21st Washington Post ran a story by Glenn Kessler declaring that Kerry was merely “engaging” with them. The whole theme of the article was that Kerry’s foreign policy was one of “engagement.” This story has got to go down in history as a classic in terms of whitewashing a candidate’s record.

Kerry adamantly opposed President Reagan’s policy of preventing a communist takeover of Central America. Evidence showed that communist Cuba and the then-Soviet Union were coordinating a massive assault on the Western hemisphere. Reagan had set them back with the liberation of Grenada and the overthrow of a communist gang there. He was also supporting a resistance movement, known as the Contras, opposing the communist Sandinistas who had taken control of Nicaragua.

In an article in the American Spectator, entitled, “The Bolshevik in Kerry,” George Neumayr wrote, “Kerry’s limousine liberation theology led him into one of the most embarrassing moments of his early Senate career—his disastrous Neville Chamberlain-style diplomacy with Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. Shortly after becoming a Senator, Kerry took off for Nicaragua with Tom Harkin on a free-lancing fact-finding tour, the purpose of which was to stymie congressional support for the Contras by ‘finding’ that the Sandinistas weren't such bad guys after all.”

Kerry said at the time, “We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement without having to militarize the region. The real issue is: Is this administration going to overthrow the government of the Sandinistas no matter what they do?” Neumayr notes that Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz “was so flabbergasted by Kerry’s shilling for Ortega that he denounced Kerry publicly for ‘dealing with the communists’ and letting himself be ‘used.’”

But that’s not how Glenn Kessler of the Post saw it. “Over the years,” he wrote, “Kerry has pushed engagement with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the communists in Vietnam and the mullahs who run Iran.” Kessler wrote that, “Early in his Senate career, in 1985, he riled the Reagan administration by traveling to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandinista government, saying that ‘we've got to create a climate of trust.’” Kessler said that Kerry had “questioned U.S. support for the contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

That’s how Kessler sanitized a Kerry policy of appeasing the communists in Nicaragua. If we had followed Kerry’s advice, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and perhaps even Mexico might be communist today. But no thanks to Kerry, pressure from the Contras forced the Sandinistas to hold free elections, which they lost. As a result, the communist insurgency in El Salvador collapsed and assumed the role of a political opposition party. On March 21, that party, led by veteran communist Schafik Handal, lost an election for the presidency. He got about 34 percent of the vote, compared to 58 percent for the conservative. Reagan was right, Kerry was wrong.

[Mavdog]

Yeah, who is Kerry to actually propose engaging foreign governments in dialogue, actually using personal communication to find how common ground could be made, when armed conflict could be the choice.

Remember that these same Sandinistas yielded power peacefully when they lost the 1990 elections. Amazing what dialogue (like that Kerry was advocating) can lead to.

Of course all we need to do is contrast this approach with the illegal conduct of the Reagan administration was guilty of in Nicaragua.

[dude1394]

Floppy flops again

Kerry Hypocritical On Steel Industry

John Kerry must think Ohio Valley steelworkers won't recognize a politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth - a hypocrite. We can think of no other explanation for his appeal for steelworker votes.
Kerry, who will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president, last week criticized President Bush's policy on tariffs to aid the steel industry.

Specifically, Kerry said Bush was wrong when, in December, he rescinded stiff tariffs being collected on some imported steel products. It should be remembered that, after eight years of inaction by a Democrat president who was content to watch foreign companies wreck the U.S. steel industry, Bush put those tariffs in place in March 2002. They did an enormous amount of good for American steel companies and their employees, including those at Wheeling-Pittsburgh and Weirton steel corporations.

But Kerry, after saying Bush should not have rescinded the tariffs, added that he would not, if elected president, reinstate them. "Tariffs are the clumsiest of the tools" for dealing with unfair trade practices, he said.

To steelworkers, Kerry offered only assurances that he would enforce U.S. laws against "dumping" by foreign steelmakers. The Bush White House already is doing that.

Kerry's lack of a plan is striking. His hypocrisy exposes him as nothing more than a demagogue - certainly not a friend to steelworkers.

[Mavdog]

So let me get your point straight.

GWBush, who stated that he is a free-trade advocate and would not enact tariffs, does so on steel. Due to the international trade agreements the US is a party to which does not allow these tariffs, as well as the simple truth that these tariffs don't really aid the industry but are a "band aid", GWBush retracts the steel tariffs.

John Kerry goes into these steel areas, tells them he is against the use of tariffs and will address illegal "dumping" in better ways.

Just who is the "flopper"? Clearly it is NOT Kerry but GWBush...