Skip to main content

View Diary: Donna Brazille hits it OUT OF THE PARK (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush was against it just like kerry! (4.00)
    My understanding of the "vote against funding the troops" issue is this:

    There were 2 versions of the bill.  One required rolling back tax cuts to pay for it.  The other didn't specify any way to pay for it.  Kerry was for the first version and against the second.

    Why is that so hard for people to understand?  Whenever Kerry gets attacked on this issue, he has to hit back HARD.  I'm a little disappointed that he hasn't slammed this one out of the park yet.  More info here.

    ---
    This post is just a preview. Get the full effect at SpaceRook.com

    by TrentL on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 06:55:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bush was against it too, you're right (none)
      Didn't Bush threaten to veto (or rather, wasn't he "advised by his staff" that he ought to veto) the bill that Kerry supported it.  Whose the flip-flopper here?
    •  Bush threatened to veto the war supplement (none)
      And, as I understand it, the Bush adminstration opposed the proposed $78 billion bill, and threatened to veto it, because it contained $20 billion in loans for Iraqi reconstruction, rather than grants, as they wanted. In the end, they went along with the loans ($18 billion, of which they have spent about $400 million, due to incompentence).
    •  Also... (4.00)
      Kerry can tie his support for the "paid for" version to his consistent stance on balance budgets, i.e., breaking with Dems in the 80's, voting with Clinton in the 93, when the budget barely passed, but worked out well (to say the least). Helps smack down multiple memes at once, i.e. "too liberal" and "flip-flop"
      •  Hmmm (3.50)
        Clearly, the in-depth, sensible explanation of Kerry's vote won't pass in the sound-bite media.  We need a 1-sentence argument for Kerry's stance.  How about:

        "I did support the $87 billion and I supported paying for it."

        ---
        This post is just a preview. Get the full effect at SpaceRook.com

        by TrentL on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:17:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or... (3.75)
          "I supported the bill that said how we'd pay for the $87 billion.  That bill, unfortuneatly, didn't pass."

          ---
          This post is just a preview. Get the full effect at SpaceRook.com

          by TrentL on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:18:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Magic word (4.00)
            I think the key is accountability.

            Didn't Kerry support the version that called for there to be oversight and accounting?

            If I have that right, then the lead-up is to remind that the Congress is obliged to not only pass laws and funding bills but to oversee the spending of those funds, to see that they are spent honestly and wisely...

            THEN:

            "The bill I voted for insisted that there be oversight and accounting in place for the $87 billion.  The president threatened to veto that one.  The bill I opposed lacked that oversight.  And since then, we've had a series of scandals about how Halliburton and other corporations have defrauded the US Treasury.  And there's over $8.8 billion that the CPA can't or won't account for.  So it appears to me that the bill that the president demanded has resulted in more than ten percent of that money being stolen from US taxpayers."

            A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment. -- Garrison Keillor

            by ogre on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:52:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  One-Line Rebutts (none)
          How about

          "I supported the 87 Billion Dollar bill that didn't have your grandchild paying for IT!!"

    •  well hold on (3.50)
      here on Kos and in numerous other dem-thought areas of the internet a fundamental problem with the two Rethug blathering points has been pointed out repeatedly: They are mutually exclusive. How can someone be so consistently liberal as to be the #1 liberal in the Senate (even though he's not), and been such a flip-flopper? if he was consistently liberal, he'd NEVER flip-flop. if he was a flip-flopper, you'd assume he'd be liberal at least half the time and anti-liberal the other.
      so the two memes cannot coexist. especially since they're not true. so technically, it's a unicorn fight: both imaginary things must battle til one wins!
    •  Bush threatened to veto the $87B himself (none)
      If you recall, W himself threatened to veto the $87 billion to pay for his war.

      Of the $87 billion, remember that $67 billion was for the troops and $20 billion was for Iraq reconstruction.  Given what preceded, no one in Congress trusted BushCo not to screw up the reconstruction. So, it was proposed to make the $20 Billion as loans to Iraq rather than as a grant (another proposal was 50/50% loans/grants).  Bush threatened to veto the bill if it was passed with any portion of the reconstruction as loans, thus depriving the troops of $67 billion of support.

      Why does Geoge W. Bush hate our troops so much?

      (I don't recall whether it was this funding request or another for Iraq, but there was one that Bush threatened to veto if it involved rolling back any of his tax giveaways to the wealthy.  Again, why does W. hate our troops?)

      "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

      by DavidW in SF on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 08:32:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Money for the troops (none)
        There is such a good ad in this little story.

        "You may have heard that John Kerry voted against supporting the troops.

        But here's what Kerry voted for ... yadda yadda.

        And here's what he voted against ... yaddda yadda.

        Now George W. Bush threatened to veto the first bill because it would roll back tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.

        So it's really a question of priorities.  Which do you value more: tax-cuts for the wealthy ... or body armour for the troops?

        John Kerry knows which side he's on."

    •  One bill, one vote (4.00)
      As I understand it, Kerry took a position on each version and stuck to it.  The exact opposite of a flip-flop.  

      Rubus Eradicandus Est.

      by Randomfactor on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 09:42:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (56)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Economy (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site