White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut

[Taft]

This is from a NY Times article (free registration required). (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/campaign/19GRAN.html?hp)

Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.

The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.

...

What was the term the right has been throwing at Kerry? Hmmm... Ah, yes! "Flip-flopping"

I should probably say something about stones and glass houses now, but I'll assume you get the point.

Taft

[mactastic]

Ah it's no good. This is far from the first time evidence has been put forth proving that Bush flip-flops just like Kerry does, and the response is a deaf wall. Or a charge that Kerry is a war criminal.

The amazing thing to me is how many flip flops Dubya's made in such a short time. Kerry's had some 30 years of public service up for scrutiny, compared to Dubya's 10 years or so. Dubya's been flip-flopping 3 times as fast to keep up! :D

[Taft]

Ah it's no good. This is far from the first time evidence has been put forth proving that Bush flip-flops just like Kerry does, and the response is a deaf wall. Or a charge that Kerry is a war criminal.

The amazing thing to me is how many flip flops Dubya's made in such a short time. Kerry's had some 30 years of public service up for scrutiny, compared to Dubya's 10 years or so. Dubya's been flip-flopping 3 times as fast to keep up! :D

And Bush's flip-flops are so much more concrete. With Kerry, we have complaints about how he voted against some huge appropriations bill, so that must mean Kerry is against defending our country. In reality, that single vote on that HUGE bill cannot be simplified to the level Kerry's critics take it.

On the flip side, we have Bush sending his appointees all around the country touting programs the Bush administration tried/is-trying-to cut. These attempted cuts were individual decisions made while designing the budget. The link is so much more clear and obvious than with Kerry.

Yet Bush is the hero and Kerry is the flip-flopper. Makes perfect sense.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

I don't buy the Kerry flip-flop story. Can anyone point out a major issue where he did a 180? I'm not asking about his votes on omnibus budget bills. If this can be used as evidence of flipping on issues, then every member of congress is a certified flip-flopper. Bush, OTOH, is the flipping-est flopper of them all. Exhibit A is the 9-11 Commission.

[mactastic]

I don't buy the Kerry flip-flop story. Can anyone point out a major issue where he did a 180? I'm not asking about his votes on omnibus budget bills. If this can be used as evidence of flipping on issues, then every member of congress is a certified flip-flopper. Bush, OTOH, is the flipping-est flopper of them all. Exhibit A is the 9-11 Commission.

Well his support for various parts of the Iraq adventure has been mixed. Kerry was caught up in the indefensible Democratic apathy fest in the run up to the war, then he was a critic of said war when Dean was on top, now he's critical but would follow the general Bush plan such as it is. Typical politico positioning, extreme in the primaries and moderate in the general election. I still can't forgive the Democratic party for failing to stand up for their principles though. They ran scared at the threat of being portrayed as soft on commu... I mean terrorism.

Kerry's also been a little unclear on his support for gay marriages. His earlier comments would lead me to believe he supports them fully, yet lately he has tried to tone it down to get his electability factor up.

Just off the top of my head.

[Taft]

Well his support for various parts of the Iraq adventure has been mixed. Kerry was caught up in the indefensible Democratic apathy fest in the run up to the war, then he was a critic of said war when Dean was on top, now he's critical but would follow the general Bush plan such as it is. Typical politico positioning, extreme in the primaries and moderate in the general election. I still can't forgive the Democratic party for failing to stand up for their principles though. They ran scared at the threat of being portrayed as soft on commu... I mean terrorism.

Kerry's also been a little unclear on his support for gay marriages. His earlier comments would lead me to believe he supports them fully, yet lately he has tried to tone it down to get his electability factor up.

Just off the top of my head.

I'd agree with that. I will say, however, that changing your stance on a position over time should be completely valid and not considered flip-flopping. People's opinions and stances change. It's a fact of life.

I think we need a more acurrate definition of flip-flopping. Something like: advocating different policies depending on who your audience is over a period of less than half a year.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

I think we need a more acurrate definition of flip-flopping. Something like: advocating different policies depending on who your audience is over a period of less than half a year.

Right. Being wishy-washy isn't the same as being flippy-floppy. Kerry may not be the one to take bold stances and stick by them, but that's not the same as changing positions to suit the political winds. Bush does this all the time, which is why it's a primary mission of his campaign to tar the other guy with the same brush. It's the same line of attack as the contrived war medals flap. It's all about deflecting attention from the Bush record.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I don't buy the Kerry flip-flop story. Can anyone point out a major issue where he did a 180? I'm not asking about his votes on omnibus budget bills. If this can be used as evidence of flipping on issues, then every member of congress is a certified flip-flopper. Bush, OTOH, is the flipping-est flopper of them all. Exhibit A is the 9-11 Commission.

The issue for me is not that a politician that changes his or hers mind. It is why, and how it is done.

I think it shows a strong belief in doing the right thing to change ones opinion once faced with new facts.

[mactastic]

It depends on what the situation is. Bush was obviously flip-flopping when he initially came out against the Dept. of Homeland Security then embraced it when it became clear that the polls were against him and his resistance was hurting his job performance numbers. Ditto for the creation of the 9/11 panel, as well as the release of info to the panel, and his willingness to appear before it along with other top administration officials. Condi Rice in particular caused Dubya trouble because they had her making the rounds of Sunday talk shows, yet wern't allowing her to testify before the commission. Since his poll numbers were taking a beating, Dubya flip-flopped and allowed her to testify.

Those are concrete examples of a polititian sticking their finger in the wind to decide where they stand on an issue, and then changing their mind based on public opinion. And not just changing it, making a 180 degree turnabout. Those definetly qualify as flip-flops for political gain.