John Kerry, flip-flopper?

The Economist ^ | Mar 25th 2004 | Lexington

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The economist support Bush in 2000, the war in Iraq, tax cuts, outsourcing, etc. It is perhaps the most objective, non-partisan weekly in any language.

Obviously they are attempt to remain neutral at this point in the campaign, but it seems as if they may be already leaning in the direction of our French looking friend. Worrisome.

Keep the Keynes quote in mind. You may see it around in the not too distant future.

[GeronL]

and they call him flipper, flipper... faster than lightening, he's changing stands....

[An.American.Expatriate]

Or who claimed to be a staunch free trader—right up to the moment he imposed illegal tariffs on imported steel?

The economist needs to do it's homework. The tariffs imposed were legal by US standards - the EU felt imposed upon (those unfair americans!!) and complained to the sozialist WTO - who (surprise) ruled that the US Tariffs were "illegal". I guess if america were to instead SUBSIDIZE the steel industry (as the EUroweenies do) this would have been ok . . .

[RJayneJ]

[GeronL]

I don't like tariffs or subsidies. I guess I am the real free trader. more or less.

The Ghost & the Shadow

[John Thornton]

I do agree with some of what this writer says:

Regardless of how Kerry flips and flops, at the end of the day, he almost always winds up on the socialist side of any issue. His flip/flops are designed to hide his true statist beliefs. To that extent, he is not inconsistent in his overall world view.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

You are right on.

Unfortunately, Bush is doing less to make this case than to go after less relevant things as pointed out in this opinion piece.

I am very worried that the chosen Bush strategy works better when neither candidate is already the President.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I am sorry but calling the WTO a socialist organization for ruling against the imposition of US tariffs on steel shows you are either being sarcastic (in which case I am amused) or just incredibly stupid (in which case I am amused).

[An.American.Expatriate]

Of the 146 members of the WTO, how many of them are "sozialist" nations?

BTW, unlike the people of some countries who base thier opinions on mis-information / feeling, my opinion of the WTO does not stem from this one decisison.

Now, tell me what YOU know about the Constitution of the United States.

[dawn53]

When Mr Bush reverses himself (in abandoning his promise to run a “humble” foreign policy, for instance)

Guess this guy never heard of 9/11.

[adam_az]

"Keep the Keynes quote in mind. You may see it around in the not too distant future."

I hope the 'rats use it. Keynes was an advocate of using debt (budget deficit) as a fiscal tool to kick start the economy during a downturn. Kerry's solution is to raise taxes.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Such problems are awkward for all senators. In Mr Kerry's case, they are compounded by a tension between the needs of representing liberal Massachusetts and his own, sometimes more hawkish, views on matters such as national security and welfare reform. "

Killing 350 weapons programs makes Kerry a hawk? Imagine if he was a dove on weapons programs.

[sr4402]

This was inconsistent. It was also justified

Huh? Justified by what? Voting to send in the troops but refusing to fund them? Kerry as Commander in Chief? God save our troops!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Guess this guy never heard of 9/11.

I do not intend to defend Kerry, but I will defend the economist. The author was clearly not criticising Bush's policies, but rather pointing out that to be consistent as a politician regardless of circumstance is both silly and perhaps detrimental. As a result, it was necessary for Bush to change after 9/11. To not react to changing circumstances is ridiculous. Thus, the criticism of Kery for flip-flopping on many issues (according to the author) especially when taken out of context is less than fair. Note that it was not written that the man doesnt flip flop or that politics are fair. Just that in many circumstances the inconsistencies are justifiable.

[Fiddlstix]

[guitfiddlist]

John Kerry, flip-flopper?

I see a new John "Frog" Kerry line of designer flip-flops by summer. I'd like a pair, one labeled "I voted for it.." and the other labeled "...before I voted against it".

[Timocrat]

It is perhaps the most objective, non-partisan weekly in any language.

On the contrary. The Economist and especially the Lexington column has always been well left of center. I believe at one time Michael Kinsley wrote it.

I read the Economist and it is nothing like the paper it was in the mid eighties. It is Euro wienie, a fully paid up member of the Euro chattering classes

[dirtboy]

So his record contains inconsistencies. But these are individual failures. They do not add up to any fundamental incoherence of political philosophy.

In other words, the Economist flip-flops in their efforts to show that Kerry isn't a flip-flopper.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

On the contrary.

Do you care to name a more objective publication? Moreover, I was talking about the Economist as a whole and not the Lexington opinion piece. An opinion piece is by its very definition subjective. I would challenge you to back up your statement with articles that reflect both the Economist of the 80s and it softer side.

Freeperland is also by definition not particularly objective. If you havent noticed, we tend to look at things from a distance slightly more than a bit right of center.

I find that the economist usually gives both perspectives and never veers to far off in either direction. A publication that is perceived by Freepers as being only slightly left of center may very well be in the middle.

[BibChr]

I question the question-mark in the title.

Dan