According to an article by the Associated Press, Sarah Bianchi, national policy director for the Kerry campaign, claims that the Senator is "absolutely not'' suggesting creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. This statement is evidence of:
a) Kerry’s latest flip-flop on a policy issue.
b) An intentionally misleading statement.
c) Proof that even his own advisors don’t know what the Democratic candidate believes.
While you can never underestimate Kerry’s ability to waffle, I don’t think it's (a). I also don’t think Bianchi would risk her credibility by telling a lie that would so easily be rebutted, so I don’t think (b) is the answer either. That leaves us with (c).
Perhaps Bianchi is unaware that last month Kerry signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill that, among other actions, supports creating embryos for the sole purpose of research (though you would expect a national policy director to know that sort of information). It’s especially odd considering that Kerry has long been a supporter of therapeutic cloning.
The type of therapeutic cloning that Kerry supports is accomplished by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The technique involves introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg cell) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, and then stimulating this new entity to begin dividing and growing, yielding a cloned embryo. Since the embryo is killed in order that its stem-cells may be harvested and used for further research, opponents of S. 303 have dubbed it the “clone-and-kill” bill. The proposed legislation also imposes a “fourteen-day rule” in which the embryo must be destroyed whether any action is taken or not.
Will Kerry continue to stand by this position once the Republicans begin pointing out that he supports “cloning?” I think he will. About the only issue he has been consistent on is supporting the destruction of the human embryo. But then again, I could be wrong. After all, he takes his foreign policy cues from the Germans. Maybe he'll adopt their views on cloning as well.
1
This person, Kerry makes me sick. It scares me to death that he could possibly be the next leader of our country. Wake up America, Kerry is very scary. Investigate before you vote.
posted on 08.24.2004 11:34 PM2
Will Kerry continue to stand by this position once the Republicans begin pointing out that he supports “cloning?”
Maybe he'll just point to the identical positions of the bill's author, right-wing theocrat Orrin Hatch, and his cosponsors, right-wing attack dog Arlen Specter and right-wing loony and RNC keynote speaker Zell Miller. Then there's always Ron Reagan . . .
posted on 08.25.2004 9:14 AM3
Come on now. In all fairness we can easily contruct the appearance of 'flip-flopping' for anyone:
Flipflopping for Big Business:
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
Flip-flopping on abortion:
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
Flip-flopping on On North Korea:
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM "Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
flip-flop on Chalabi to stop the Iranian mole in the NSA.
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
And of course an oldie but a goodie, Bush flip-flops on Iraqi WMD’s:
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
So leaders refine their positions on complex issues as time goes by? That's not exactly amazing is it? I'd be more worried if Bush, or Kerry, refused to change their mind son anything ever.
posted on 08.25.2004 9:40 AM4
Orrin Hatch is solidly on the right, and Zell Miller is speaking at the RNC (though I wouldn't call him a loony). Ron Reagan has always been a solid leftist. As for Arlen Specter, you'd have to be left of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky to think he's right-wing.
posted on 08.25.2004 9:45 AM5
Seems funny to me that to get Bush to flip flop you have to use a direct quote from him and then a quote from a media source. (sometimes a quote of a quote from another media source) Using this technique anyone could make anyone flip flop as we all know how accurate and unbiased media sources are. As to both direct quotes I don't see any flip flop at all. Have to stretch pretty hard for that one. Kerry's direct flips are too numerous to even begin. Doesn't really matter. He may not even make it to the election as this Vietnam thing blows up in his face and he's too proud to get his butt kicked by W.
posted on 08.25.2004 10:42 AM6
"Doesn't really matter. He may not even make it to the election as this Vietnam thing blows up in his face and he's too proud to get his butt kicked by W."
I don't think anything will be settled for sure until after the debates.
You also forget an important fact. That most of those that have been supporting Kerry are doing so because they don't want Bush, not because of any great liking for Kerry. That motive hasn't gone away, and has even been reinforced by the Karl Rove dirty tricks campaign underway.
posted on 08.25.2004 11:03 AM7
Duane there's a whole page of such stuff for Bush. Some using his own words, some using his own actions, some using both words and actions. Same for Kerry.
Changing course AKA “flip-flopping” is changing course regardless if you just say it or actually do it. And for most folks, doing it is considered more germane than just saying it offhand. I provided only a sample of one page on one site for Bush, but each example I provided are matters widely reported and easily verified as factual with a short search of the relevant material. IOWs, Bush really performed those flip-flops and we're not talking about flip-flopping over a tax bill. This is deadly serious stuff he's flip-flopped on.
There are many such sites and many such examples on those sites for both candidates.
I believe you may have missed the larger point Duane.
1. It's a piece of cake to engineer, edit, cut and paste, or otherwise selectively isolate past events to portray any position on issues. Given enough recorded material, I can take your actions over the last few years, taped interviews, recorded conversations, interviews with people who claim to know you, and cast you as almost anything I wish. “Dammit Sen Kerry, is light a particle or a wave? Stop waffling!”
2. Using negative simplistic sound bites such as 'flip-flopper' does a disservice to the potential voter who is actually interested in trying to understand the issues. It doesn't bother me that George Bush or John kerry may ahve changed their respective position[s] on important issues over their careers, because that's what should happen when your first approach doesn't work, or you get new information suggesting a more effective course of action.
Putting up an interactive cartoon on your official site "The Kerry flip-flopping acrobat" or "George the Smirking Chimp Banana Game" game is, well, somewhat insulting to many voters.
Should I put up a banner on any of the Blogs I ghost on or guest on calling Cheney a 'flip-flopper' on Gay Marriage based on his supoprt for states rights to allow gay marriage and in supoprt of his lesbian daughter? What good would that do if I did? I think Cheney's right! Why would I penalize him for making a courageous moral decision which I feel is the correct one merely to get another shot at the GOP for flip-flopping?
It sure doesn't compliment the intelligence or maturity of the folks you envision visiting your campaign site tohave deceptive characeter attacks or interactive juvenile cartoons.
What demeaning someone with silly sound bites does do effectively is distract potential voters from the successes and failures of either candidate. That really only makes sense to do if your candidate is concerned they won't fare well in such a lucid comparison.
If you sense trouble across a wide range of issues, if your candidate is vurnurable horrid decisions based on faulty data that have gotten thousands of innocent people killed and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, you have to take the light off that and demonize the other guy damn near anyway you can.
You have to make people who have never met the guy hate him furiously.
You cannot afford a rational comparison of what happened in the 60's, or the 70's, or the 80's, or the 90's ... You can't handle a side by side comparison of life time accomplishments if your candidate spent years and year unaccounted for or allegedly abusing substances and getting into trouble.
That's why tactics like smearing or character assassination become so important. That's why appeals to religious bias are key. You have to bypass the rational side of your supporters and try to flip unconscious switches if you want to win with a losing record.
Flip-flopping is merely one such rhetorical trick.
8
"He may not even make it to the election as this Vietnam thing blows up in his face and he's too proud to get his butt kicked by W."
You must be the star pupil at the Joe C. and Kevin W. Academy for Promoting Wishful Thinking.
Surely Catholics won't vote for Kerry because he won't stop abortion.
Surely Blacks will realize that the Republican party better represents their values.
Surely our country won't elect a self-avowed war criminal like John Kerry.
Surely Kerry's flip-flopping will turn off voters.
No matter how ugly a portrait of Kerry is drawn by right-wingers, he looks like the cover of a romance novel next to our current president. The Bush team should ask itself why such a homely, humdrum fellow is holding his own with an incumbent president in a time of war. Could it be that our "uniter" has overplayed the stirring mandate he seems to think the 2000 election represents?
posted on 08.25.2004 2:58 PM9
"He may not even make it to the election as this Vietnam thing blows up in his face and he's too proud to get his butt kicked by W"
Okay. THAT is the funniest thing I've read here all year. Whatever this poster means by the "Vietnam thing" I can assure it won't be blowing up in Kerry's face. It might blow up in the 'liberal media's' face (like the WMD issue and the Iraq War) or in Bush's face (like the WMD issue and the Iraq War) but it won't be blowing up in Kerry's face.
That said, can someone please explain to me why killing 14 day old embyronic stem cells which will never turn into anything other than stem cells is any worse than killing cells from a human somatic cell line (e.g., a HeLa cell line which will never turn into anything other than HeLa cells)?
I'll be glad when Kerry's elected and this stupid debate about embryonic stem cells is over.
posted on 08.25.2004 4:02 PM10
DS,
An unforseen sh** storm dumped all over Crawford Texas this afternoon.
Um, yeah, that is really bound to stir things up. Please. Do you seriously think that some obscure former Senator who voted against the Homeland Security bill 11 times?
I'll see your Max Cleland and raise you a Bob Dole. ; )
posted on 08.25.2004 4:22 PM11
Do you seriously think that some obscure former Senator who voted against the Homeland Security bill 11 times?
You mean one of the few senators who didn't allow themselves to be pigeon holed into enacting the USA PATRIOT Act? Sounds like a plus in my book. I really wish Dole would stop. He's really making an ass of himself.
August 22nd Wolf Blitzer reports:
DOLE: "[W]hat I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart -- he got two in one day, I think."..."I respect his record, but three Purple Hearts and he never bled that I know of? They're all superficial wounds"
Wow two in one day and he didn't even bleed. Wow now we are extrapolating the swift boat story into all new levels of distortion. Pretty soon they'll be claiming Kerry wasn't even in Vietnam ("unlike our courageous President & VP" implied).
August 23rd same show:
"I [Dole] reminded him [Kerry] that in 1996, I didn't have anybody out writing these great stories about Bob Dole's war record and I don't think we were feeding them to people."
Um really?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/the.story.mov
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/dole.values.mov
And that's just from campaign commercials.
posted on 08.25.2004 4:47 PM12
It's not wishful thinking to hope Kerry doesn't make it to the election.
I want Kerry to be the nominee--I think it's great that the Democratic Party has run a legislator (not a governor or some other executive, of course they don't have many of those anymore), who is the most liberal member of the Senate (hard to do, with Feinstein and Boxer and Kennedy and Clinton and Byrd in the same body), who is running on a platform of his Vietnam War service (who is not supported by 90% plus of the veterans who happened to serve with him, in his unit), and who has never run a national campaign.
Run, Kerry, run!! You too, Ralph!!
Kerry is even in the polls, and Bush hasn't even started his campaign yet. His convention won't even start for over a week. Who's guilty of wishful thinking here? Not the right.
posted on 08.25.2004 4:52 PM13
"clone and kill" is such a misnomer for this bill and you know it. You are intentionally invoking images of growing humans for organ harvesting. We are again talking about clumps of cells no more than 14 days old (according to the text of the bill if you bothered to read it). That means mass "cloning" of what? By your religious definition I suppose you could say "people." I'll instead say "clumps of cells." And once again we are talking about working with the embryos that would have been discarded from IVF. Stop the distortion and allow scientists to cure diseases.
Oh and in case no one noticed, the GOP is again pushing to outright ban abortion with a constitutional amendment in their party platform.
posted on 08.25.2004 4:53 PM14
who is the most liberal member of the Senate
Neither of them are the most liberal member of the Senate. Kerry is left of center on his lifetime voting record. Edwards is pretty much dead center. Not that that is really important or anything.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
posted on 08.25.2004 4:55 PM15
Kerry is even in the polls, and Bush hasn't even started his campaign yet.
Bush has far outspent Kerry on campaign commercials and he's been criss crossing the country on his campaign tours. That is complete with pre-selected audiences to ensure he doesn't get any questions he can't answer like, "Why have you been on vacation 40% of the time," "why did you call your it the 'Clear Skies Initiative' when it increased the pollution allowances on industry," and "why would you go to war exactly the same way as we did knowing that there were no WMD's and that there was no imminent threat."
posted on 08.25.2004 4:58 PM16
Yo, Joe, here's grist for your mill:
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/223.pdf
Among other results, poll shows that 52% of Americans believe research is more important than worrying about whether embryonic stem cells are "human beings".
posted on 08.25.2004 5:00 PM17
Kevin writes
"I want Kerry to be the nominee--I think it's great that the Democratic Party has run a legislator (not a governor or some other executive, of course they don't have many of those anymore), who is the most liberal member of the Senate..."
Um, Kevin, that was debunked a month ago and was a joke on the Daily Show two weeks ago. Sad.
"who is running on a platform of his Vietnam War service ..."
The Repubs keep saying this but unfortunately it's not true. Kerry did go to Vietnam (unlike Bush) and he did come back and fight to end the war (which everyone agrees was the right thing to do). Only the Swift Boat Liars are concerned about the nitty gritty details of Kerry's awards. And the Swift Boat Liars are, well, liars.
"and who has never run a national campaign."
But who is nevertheless ahead of Bush in the polls, in spite of the fact that Bush is an incumbent president who led the US into a war which was quite popular (at least, when it started). Gee, what could have happened?
Kevin: it's over. Like MC Hammer. Finished.
posted on 08.25.2004 5:06 PM18
If you give it a warm, fuzzy name, people will like it. Don't call it the "Increase Pollution Bill"; that sounds bad. Don't call it the "Suspend Civil Liberties Act"; we haven't made civil liberty a bad thing like "liberal" yet. Don't call the network news organization "Partisan and Distorted"; people don't want the truth. Don't call them "Swift Boat Liars for Bush"; that won't get the swing vote.
First, the Republican Party commandeered the flag. Next, they claimed ownership of the Christian god. Now they want to corner the market on lying! Dammit, I liked Clinton's lies better! They didn't kill people.
posted on 08.25.2004 5:51 PM19
Joe my guess is that it will get some play. That this event provides one graphic, alebit simplistic, focus for why many of us feel that George Bush's political tactics reek of questionable ethical/moral conduct in both the present contest and past races.
You have a guy in a wheelchair who was wounded badly in Vietnam delivering a letter asking for George Bush to publicly honor the past and present service of Combat Warriors. He is ignored. Left out in the hot Texas sun like a lump of useless humanity. His momentous sacrifice for the very nation Bush now leads clear for all to see. No legs, his right arm a stump since that terrible day in South Veitnam that rendered him disfigured.
The natural question is; where was Bush both then and now? Could the President who speaks so often about the need to honor service in Iraq be so busy on vacation that he cannot take ten minutes out to invite the wounded veteran and fomer ongressman in for a friendly discussion of an important issue?
That looks very bad and, again, it didn't have to be that way. It represents fear, avoidance, and implies shame, on the WH that Bush did not appear. But Bush could hav easily countered this photo-op by employing common courtesy. He chose not to.
I don't know how big a deal it will turn out to be, but my guess would be we will see this pciture played over and over, and that the SBVFT are done.
posted on 08.25.2004 5:54 PM20
Well, DS, if that's true, and the Swift Boat ads go away, that would be a shame for Kerry. Didn't you say that the Swift Boat ads HELP your candidate?
Maybe you should send them some money, so they can keep running them, and Kerry will get to squeeze out a more more points in the polls.
posted on 08.26.2004 9:38 AM21
Kevin I don’t know if the SBVFT will stop. Question is, going forward, who are they helping?
O’Neil’s been popped hard, for example they've been displaying a line from Unfit for Command, where O’Neil states he was never in Cambodia or inside a fifty mile distance to Cambodia, with a tape of John O’Neil talking to Richard Nixon in which O’Neil tells that President "I was in Cambodia". ::snort::
It’s pretty deadly stuff. That's a nice simple soundbite, and it's getting lots of play. It's also satisfying for the average Joe to see someone who is smearing combat vets get their head handed to them like that.
So stuff like that has seriously wounded the SBVFT lobby and the worse they look, the cheaper BushRoveCo look. Remember, we've seen this cheap shot before by Bush against both McCain and Cleland. Only an idiot would think the Kerry campaign didn't anticipate they'd do it again. And even though it did work to smear McCain and Cleland in the past, it really bothered a whole bunch of people on both sides of the aisle, so there's plenty of people who would secretly enjoy seeing Bush get his.
The SBVFT ads were effective for the first few days, but now they've been largely discounted and recent data indicates they've become a net negative for Bush. Also keep in mind that although those of us who are news junkies understand the connections between Bush and the SBVFT are just now coming to light formally, in the public's mind there was never any difference between the campaigns
The stats on approval of Kerry's Combat Record are:
Dems 10:1 positive to negative (No surprise there)
Republicans 50/50
Independents 5:1
It's the last two lines where Bush is in trouble. There’s a lesson to learn in this; in the past John Kerry has always lets his opponent move first. If you watch him in debates and examine his campaign record, he’ll let his opponent ramble on and on and on without saying a word until the opponent screws up or comes off as hateful and then, bam, Kerry hits hard.
Now, George Bush did make an enormous mistake in Iraq, and he has a past history of smearing combat vets when he himself is on record avoiding Vietnam, and both those decisions are now coming home to roost.
The end result of all this will be for the Bush admin themselves to abandon the smear and start demanding to discuss the current issues. And that’s exactly what the Kerry campaign was maneuvering them into saying. On the issues, Bush comes out looking very bad. Dead Americans and hundreds of billions dollars lost in Iraq with no clear benefit, no end in sight, and apparently no plan even on the table for getting us the hell out of there. More jobs lost than under any administration since the Great Depression. More people losing healthcare, a middle class tax increase while the wealthy pay less, funny business in the drug and oil lobbies resulting in policies directly opposed to free business practices and restrictions completely against the interests of the public, not to mention the irrational hatred of Gay Americans and the attempts to alter the most sacred document in the nation to make it legal to discriminate against them
Bush is the undisputed owner of an ugly, ugly, record, and I’m sure the Kerry campaign is delighted to hear the GOP demanding to stop all this talk about Vets and focus on the issues.
posted on 08.26.2004 11:03 AM22
The new Aeon is upon us the Apocalypse is coming...It's not what you expect after all. Your reality formed from medieval musings will end. I welcome this change!!. The time for the balance of Matriarch and Patriarch.
posted on 08.31.2004 8:37 AM