ambivalent imbroglio home

« Green Means Go | Main | RNC Convention Wrapper »

September 02, 2004

Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

Whoop! There it is:
A day after telling NBC's Matt Lauer that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terror, he told a veterans' group in Tennessee that "we are winning, and we will win.''
So which is it, Mr. Bush? Maybe you should stick to your cue cards next time, huh?
As the news drones on about the Republican Convention I'm reminded again of how the Republicans have operated for the last four years, which is basically to say one thing and do another. Go back to the 2000 campaign and look at the promises of "no nation building" and "compassionate conservatism" and moderation and whatever. What's happened? Lots of nation building and zero compassion and zero conservatism—how can it be "conservative" to run up huge debts and destroy the environment, jobs, social security, etc? But the Bush Administration takes flip-flopping to a more sinister level. Rather than taking "Position 1" for some good reason, then later switching to "Position 2" in light of new evidence or developments, the Bush Administration starts from "Position 2," all the while maintaining it supports "Position 1." Then when it's shown that "Position 2" has actually been achieved, Bush says "no, that's not Position 2—that's Position 1." Example: The Clear Skies Initiative. Bush says he wants to improve the environment (Position 1). His policies create more environmental deterioration, showing deference to the profit-motivated desires of big business (Position 2). We know he wanted to help big business all along (Position 2), and when you point out that the environment has gotten worse, not better, Bush just repeats like a machine his desire to improve the environment (Position 1). In another example, Bush says he wants to help senior citizens get cheaper prescription drugs, then he passes medicare "reform" that makes it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices and effectively (though not technically) prohibit individuals and states from getting cheaper drugs from Canada. Of course, Bush continues to claim he really cares about senior citizens and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. Doublespeak, much? Even more ingenious is the way the Republicans attack their opponents for the Bush's own weaknesses. Bush has a horrible record of military service (read: virtually none), so what do the Republicans do? Attack John Kerry's military service. Bush campaigned in 2000 as a moderate but his administration has been the exact opposite—extremely right wing. He's saying one thing and doing another (see above), so what do the Republicans do? They attack John Kerry as a "flip-flopper." Bush did nothing worthwhile with his life before becoming President, so what do the Republicans do? Attack John Kerry's lifetime of public service and claim he's done nothing in his decades as an elected representative. It's sick. It's scary. And it's incredibly effective. Bush is now leading in predicted electoral college votes for the first time in a while. Great.

Posted September 2, 2004 07:44 AM | election 2004


Actually, the tactic is (from necessity) to attack Kerry. Politically speaking, when and incumbant is facing poor job approval ratings, and the polls show Bush is still doing rather poorly, the only way to win is to discredit the opposing candidate. Welcome to the two party system. Blah.

I'm just amazed that more people can't see through these b.s. tactics.

Posted by: -Dave! at September 2, 2004 10:59 AM

Letterman's take on that last night was that Bush is now predicting a "tie" in the war on terror :)

Posted by: Kelly at September 2, 2004 12:46 PM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.