Flip-Flop, Hedge and Straddle

[FishForLunch]

I guess we will never know what Kerry wants to, but we can be sure that whatever he decides will not be final and he will leave himself enough wiggle room in case his decision backfires.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEN. JOHN F. KERRY of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said last week that he would have saved Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide from forced exile. "I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period," Mr. Kerry said in an interview with the New York Times. Purposeful and decisive, no doubt, and useful as a riposte to Republican portrayals of him as a waffler. But on Feb. 24, when Mr. Aristide's fate still hung in the balance, Mr. Kerry did not sound quite so decisive. He called then for the administration to "do more to preserve the democratic process" and to support a multilateral force including police from Caribbean nations and others. But the most he was ready to advocate in terms of U.S. troops was "a visible show of U.S. military force off the coast."


That kind of bet-hedging helps explain the resonance of some of the partisan attacks on Mr. Kerry. Flip-flops aren't always bad; there's nothing to admire in politicians who never change their minds and never learn from experience. Though Mr. Kerry has been in public life longer than President Bush, his supporters can find a Bush flip for just about every Kerry flop. Mr. Bush fought the creation of a homeland security department until one day he loved the idea. As a candidate he supported regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants; as president he opposed it. Most famously, the great belittler of nation-building has dispatched American troops on hugely ambitious projects to rebuild the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Haiti.

But Bush reversals differ from Kerry waffles. Mr. Bush seems to his detractors to change course with worrisomely little thought -- and to feel just as sure of himself in his new position as he was in his old. Earlier, he was jauntily certain that the United States should conduct a humble foreign policy; now he is jauntily certain that it should pursue a grand campaign against evil. Because the administration rarely admits that its positions have changed, even when the change is obvious, and because no introspection or process of deliberation is evident, the depth of commitment may be suspect.

Mr. Kerry has a similar problem for a different reason: It's not always clear what, if anything, he's committed to. The senator's supporters say that what sometimes looks like indecision reflects his devotion to thinking through a problem, to weighing every nuance and potential consequence before leaping to a decision. That's an admirable trait in a world more complex than Mr. Bush at times seems to recognize. But the hedging and subsequent grandstanding on Haiti raise the same question as do Mr. Kerry's campaign-trail straddles on a wide range of issues (trade, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and more): Where are the bedrock principles that would guide him in office? Mr. Kerry's challenge over the coming months will be to convince voters that his decisions are informed by more than caution and political calculation. A president has to know when to send in the Marines, and when not to. Sending them halfway -- keeping them "visible" but "off the coast" -- isn't often going to be the right answer.

[Drbio]

love the title of the thread fish......I knew immediately what it was all about. John Kerry had his spine surgically removed and replaced with a cartilaginous notocord so he could flip-flop more easily.

[Mavdog]

That shoe fits well on GWBush it seems...
****************************
Who's the crown prince of flip-flopping?
Let us count the many times that Bush has conveniently changed his course of action

Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas
Published March 11, 2004

AUSTIN, Texas -- Living proof that the Democrats haven't gotten any smarter since the last time they ran a candidate for president. Much huffing (and a huffy Democrat is a terrifying sight) over the fact that President Bush used images of 9-11 and of the firefighters at ground zero to tout his candidacy in his first campaign ad. How crass, said the D's. Exploiting a national tragedy for political purposes--oh, how tacky.

The problem is not that the ad is in bad taste, the problem is that Bush screwed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway and that, my friends, is gall. Bait, switch and then claim credit anyway.

For those of you who have forgotten what happened (apparently including the entire Bush campaign) shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001, President Bush promised a $3.5 billion aid package to provide equipment and training in dealing with such attacks to local police and fire departments. For more than 18 months, no money appeared, and when money finally did appear, it was nowhere near the promised levels (hey, he had to cut those taxes on the richest 1 percent of Americans).

Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked ground zero were promised $90 million to monitor the long-term health effects of breathing in all that ash for months while they cleaned up. The money was to have been included in the overall post Sept. 11 aid package for New York City, but it got shifted to another bill that Bush rejected the following August. About half the workers screened before the money ran out suffered from respiratory problems.

Republicans in Congress twice voted down first-responder money. New York's congressional delegation, led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, put up a huge battle before the long-promised $90 million was finally pried out of a reluctant Congress and White House, but the responder money is still not fully funded to this good day.

Despite disingenuous statements put out by the White House ("There's more assistance going to state and local officials than ever before"), Bush is still behind on his initial commitment. You do not have to be an ace Washington reporter to figure this out. Ask your local fire department.

You can see that this is already shaping up as a campaign where the media observe Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry under a microscope (has he switched to earth tones yet?) and neglect to point out the obvious facts about Bush's record. Kerry, say the Republicans solemnly, is given to flip-flopping. Kerry is?

Let's just start counting off the top of our heads: President Bush was opposed to a commission to investigate how and why Sept. 11 occurred, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He now brags, "I went to the UN (before invading Iraq)"? Who recalls why he changed his mind about doing that? He originally said he not only did not need to consult the United Nations, he said he did not even have to consult the U.S. Congress.

Anyone remember how Bush, the corporate ethicist of Harken Energy, opposed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill? Sarbanes-Oxley was a mildly reformist piece of legislation deemed slightly necessary in the wake of the staggering accounting scandals that caused the collapse of Enron Corp., Tyco International Ltd. and WorldCom Inc. There seemed to be a new record-bankruptcy every week, but our president didn't think we needed any new laws to prevent such things, my no. When did he change his mind and decide to sign it? After it passed the House of Representatives with one vote against it.

Remember when we weren't going to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't going to negotiate with North Korea again, but we would "talk" to North Korea, but only in multilateral "talking," until Bush changed his mind yet again and now we're in multilateral negotiations.

Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well.

Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you?

Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word?

Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he?

[Drbio]

boy...that article was written by an open minded objective person huh? Typical liberal spin using half-facts and fully manufactured inferences.

[Mavdog]

boy...that article was written by an open minded objective person huh?

She is one of the better writers on either side of the aisle. Her books on Texas politics are very, very funny.

Typical liberal spin using half-facts and fully manufactured inferences.

like? for instance?

[dude1394]

Molly Ivins is the texas equivalent of Maureen Dowd.

Dang I must have missed those vetoes. All of those bills that bush rejected.

[Drbio]

Molly Ivins is a wannabe. She spews nothing but what the dimocratic party wants her to spew.

[u2sarajevo]

I think there is only one thing that Molly Ivins and I share.... that is the fact that we are both SPARES.