corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
I hate the term flip-flop. I was the first person on this forum to explain why the 87 billion gaffe wasn't only not a flip flop but represented a consistent stand (well, perhaps a politically motivated one to usurp the Dean vote but he said he wouldnt vote for it unless Iraq paid it back in part and he followed through on that promise).
Since then, everytime Kerry changes a bit of rhetoric we get subjected to the right wing cacaphony of "flip-flop". Its such a pervasive meme that even Leno and Letterman have jumped on the bandwagon.
Now, I acknowledge all of that. So please don't lump me in with the Hannity's of the world by discussing this topic.
Kerry has criticized the large deficit. Bush according to his people has squandered the surplus and give us record deficits. Kerry criticized us paying for the Iraq war with deficit spending.
Now post-BC (the infamous phone BC phone call and the staff changes at the Kerry campaign) the message has changed to "we should have spent that money on social programs".
Now, I could play message parser and suggest that this means Kerry is pro-deficits but I find that sorta thing tiresome.
What I do find interesting is that the level of mixed messages from his campaign overall. Mixed messages on Iraq. Mixed messages on deficits. Mixed messages on SBVT (theyre a republican smear followed by retraction after retraction on Kerry's vietnam record).
Are these mixed messages good for the Kerry campaign? I don't think so. Swing voters won't be impressed with a wishy washy guy with a lackluster senate record, even if he isn't George Bush. I think this could affect Kerry's availibility to win what is a referendum vote on Bush in some ways. Kerry has to avoid having voters focus on him at all and turn this back into a referendum vote.
Since then, everytime Kerry changes a bit of rhetoric we get subjected to the right wing cacaphony of "flip-flop". Its such a pervasive meme that even Leno and Letterman have jumped on the bandwagon.
Now, I acknowledge all of that. So please don't lump me in with the Hannity's of the world by discussing this topic.
Kerry has criticized the large deficit. Bush according to his people has squandered the surplus and give us record deficits. Kerry criticized us paying for the Iraq war with deficit spending.
Now post-BC (the infamous phone BC phone call and the staff changes at the Kerry campaign) the message has changed to "we should have spent that money on social programs".
Now, I could play message parser and suggest that this means Kerry is pro-deficits but I find that sorta thing tiresome.
What I do find interesting is that the level of mixed messages from his campaign overall. Mixed messages on Iraq. Mixed messages on deficits. Mixed messages on SBVT (theyre a republican smear followed by retraction after retraction on Kerry's vietnam record).
Are these mixed messages good for the Kerry campaign? I don't think so. Swing voters won't be impressed with a wishy washy guy with a lackluster senate record, even if he isn't George Bush. I think this could affect Kerry's availibility to win what is a referendum vote on Bush in some ways. Kerry has to avoid having voters focus on him at all and turn this back into a referendum vote.
