CBS News | Bush’s Top Ten Flip-Flops | September 30, 2004 04:28:06
Now it begins. After the government fined CBS nearly a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s breast then perhaps setting up a scam with the fake letter Dan rather received, they’ve decided to go after Bush. Let’s see if they are relentless or wimp out.
Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that’s been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”
As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.
A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds
related link:
the next Dick Tuck emerges and harps on the Kerry flip flopping with a character named flipper. Quite funny.
If this is the best that flipping CBS can do, Bush is a shoe-in. These arguments are unbelievably weak.
RE: Nation Building and the Iraq War.
The problem is that most of the other nations of the world have no backbone to do what is right. He said, “I’m not so sure.” Ok. Now he is. That is not a flip-flop. He didn’t say, “I firmly believe that we cannot…”. He didn’t say, “We absolutely cannot…”. He said, “I’m not so sure…” As new evidence and experience came to bear, it has become obvious that many nations in the world have no real desire to actually fight terrorism abroad and some not even at home. Result: Not a flip-flop.
RE: Iraq and 9/11 Attacks.
Bush says Saddam and Al Qaeda are equally bad. Later we find out that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. Ok. That doesn’t mean that Saddam is any less bad. That doesn’t mean that Bush thinks that Saddam is any less bad. Result: Not a flip-flop.
RE: 9/11 Commission
This is a perfect example of liberal double-talk. On the one had they screamed for the commission and now they are lambasting him for initially having reservations about declassifying sensitive information. Further, after they get the commission it does nothing but vindicate him. Notice you don’t hear much of anything anymore about the 9/11 commission results? Not a flip-flop but a brilliant political trap that made the liberals (and the intelligence community) look terrible. Result: Not a flip-flop.
RE: Free Trade:
Ok. I’ll buy this is a genuine flip-flop. That’s one.
RE: Homeland Security Dept.
Let’s not forget the cries from Clarke and other liberals who claimed that the idea of a central Homeland Security department was absolutely necessary and then lambasted the implementation of that department as trampling on people’s rights. Bush feared this exact thing but finally caved. I’ll buy that this is a flip-flop but a very weak one. That’s a weak number two.
RE: Same-sex marriage.
Bush has always been against same-sex marriage (a position I very much disagree with). Let’s see, what happened this past 18 months that had not happened in 2000? That’s right, the Massachusetts court decision making it legal. If that had happened in 2000, I’ll bet that Bush would have called for an Amendment then as well. Events transpired since his original statement that changed the situation in the country. Result: Not a flip-flop.
RE: Winning the war on terror
Again weak. But I’ll buy it as a flip-flop. That’s 3 out of 7.
RE: Campaign Finance Reform
Again, CBS is conveniently ignoring changing events. The 527’s have generated 10’s of millions of dollars of campaign money. If anything, the 527’s have hurt Bush more than Kerry. But when those 527’s came out and attacked Kerry, suddenly it was a bad idea to the left. Bush believes that people have a right to say what they want. That includes things that are disparaging to him. But what turned out as a way to express freedom of speech has turned into a loophole a mile wide to finance politicians. In other words, people have abused the 527’s. Circumstances changed. Result: Not a flip-flop.
RE: Gas Prices.
Bush has gotten OPEC to increase their production significantly; almost, or in some cases beyond original capacity estimates. The price of gas is the price that the free market will bear. It is believed that there is a bubble in the oil market caused by unfounded fear about oil availability. At some point, that bubble is going to break and the price will fall. It’s not like OPEC is artificially raising the price of oil. But I forget, the left have no concept of how supply and demand work. Bush is letting the free market work. Sometimes that process is painful in the short run. Result: Not a flip-flop
So there you have it, we have a very sketchy 3/10 and one could argue more like 1/10.
PS. I love the posters. “Strategery” nice…
It’s hard to claim that there’s some hidden, revenge-type, agenda with the decision to point out Bush’s top 10 flip-flops, when, in the very article you link to, they have a link to their own article: “John Kerry’s Top Ten Flip-Flops.”
Nice “balance” that part 2 of the series is on Kerry’s flips-flops (excuse me, mixed-messages) 🙂
Some of the story’s examples seemed simplistic, i.e. the Free Trade one:
Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.
As I remember, it was other US industries complaning about the retaliatory tariffs levied against them – with WTO authorization – which were increasing, the longer US tariffs were in-place.
We’ve gone from sound-bite journalism to text-bite journalism. The issues are complex, so they simplify it for me?
As Bill the Cat would say: Thppfft!!
Thomas
While I think the whole “flip-flop” thing is absurd, because it uses insultingly-simplified versions of events, I find your argument against Bush’ s “reversal” (CBS’s term) on same sex marriage a bit strained.
From the article: Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal.
It seems that Bush was willing to declare states “can do what they want to do” on the issue. – because, at the time, all the states were doing was passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. It was only when a state got same-sex marriage protections through “nefarious means” (my term – sarcasm intended) that he felt the need to publicly support federal actions.
To me, this means he only made the “can do what they want to” statement because he thought it was safe to do so – for whatever political gain it gave him, at the time.
The issue is not whether Bush has always personally opposed same-sex marriage, it is that he has not always pubicly supported a federal ban on recognition of them.
Your “what if” scenario about the Mass. court-action taking place in 2000 doesn’t alter the fact that Bush changed his pubicly-stated position on the issue.
Off-topic:
I also like how a man, whose election to office was only settled after Supreme Court involvement – Florida and US – , can complain about “activist judges”. 🙂
In 2000, Bush’s felt that the people of the various states would decide how they wanted to handle same-sex marriage. Again, what changed was the Massachusetts High Court telling the Legislature that they wouldn’t accept any marriage law that does not allow same-sex marriage. The feeling was that the Court was usurping power and dictating to the Legislature. Further, conservatives felt that the Courts were going to do whatever they wanted regardless of what the people wanted. This is the part that opponents keep forgetting. The people of the various states (including California of all places) did decide how they wanted to handle same-sex marriage and the Courts chose otherwise. There were already plans to take the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton to the Supreme Court to overturn.
It was at this point that it became clear to conservatives that the will of the people in the various states would never truly be heard (read: accepted) without a Constitutional Amendment. This is the set of circumstances that changed and thus changed Bush’s position.
I don’t consider it a flip-flop when outside circumstances change the dynamics of the situation. IMO, a flip-flip requires either a major change of conviction (which this is not) or a change instigated by special interests or personal gain as opposed to outside events. Bush’s changing on free trade is a much better example this sort of change. I think that Kerry’s flip-flops are much more genuine. Proclaiming that our troops are undersupplied and then voting against a package to supply them is a flip-flop and shows a serious lack of integrity.
Now, that said, while I do not think that Bush was flip-flopping, I think he is entirely wrong on this issue and the Courts are right.
Regarding you last quip, it is complete nonsense that the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. Furthermore, if you think the 2000 election was close; you should read about the 1800 election between Jefferson and Adams. That was far more contentious and decided in a far more underhanded way than the Supreme Court telling Florida that they have to figure out how to cast their electoral votes on their own. Your comment is about as worthy as conservatives saying that liberals are hypocrites for endorsing abortion and opposing capital punishment.
Thomas
Regarding you last quip, it is complete nonsense that the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election.
Calm down. I stated that they were involved, not that they “decided” the 2000 election.
The lengths you go to – to explain Bush’s actions in this case – merely underscore why I dislike the entire “flip-flop” mantra. It only concerns itself with the fact that a change took place, with no consideration of why the change took place.
Proclaiming that our troops are undersupplied and then voting against a package to supply them is a flip-flop and shows a serious lack of integrity.
Really? There was no other reason for him to vote against it? He just spontaneously “flip-flopped”? I’m sure a Kerry-defender could write as lengthy a defense of that decision, as you wrote in defense of Bush’s change of mind about supporting the marriage amendment.
Seeing as how I am not enamored of Kerry or Bush, I will leave that to someone else.
The problem with Kerry’s vote on the defense bill is that this is not an isolated incident. If Kerry had been a big supporter of supplying the military through his Senate voting, I’d agree with the argument that the Senator found problems with this one particular bill. The reality is that Kerry has consistently voted against defense apportionments. Thus, if we take his Senate voting record in combination with his vote on this latest defense bill we see a trend that contradicts his statements. This, to me, shows a contradiction in conviction and thus a flip-flop.