May 5, 2004
HAS ANY STORY RELYING ON THE TARIFFS EVER MADE SENSE?:
THE MAKING OF GEORGE BUSH, MACHO MAN: Whatever its outcome, Election 2004 has already been cast in the media as a battle between the strong-but-stubborn George Bush and a nuanced-but-indecisive John Kerry. (Zachary Roth, 5/04/04, AlterNet)
The problem with this handy framing device is that reporters are so devoted to the "strong-but-stubborn" thesis, that they are willing to ignore any evidence that runs counter to it. Neither Sanger, nor Wolffe, nor Broder, for example, mentioned any of Bush's various well-documented reversals -- be it on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, steel tariffs, or allowing Condoleezza Rice testify before the 9/11 Commission. Whether you see those decisions as weak and unprincipled flip-flopping or flexible decision-making, they sure don't fit the "strong-but-stubborn" Bush.
That's it? Those are the big reversals of George Bush? A bureaucratic rearrangement, early ending of a temporary measure, and letting an aid testify?
John Kerry, meanwhile, has flip-flopped on almost every issue of the campaign: Vietnam, abortion, the Iraq war, NCLB, private retirement accounts, etc. The only issue that he seems never to have wavered on is increasing taxes.
Posted by Orrin Judd at May 5, 2004 9:03 AMBush may not say "I was wrong", but he doesn't try to defend the old positions, either. He's willing to MoveOn™. Kerry tries to defend his positions both before and after he changes it, and seems to do everything possible to make sure we are aware of both before and after. Note also that Bush's "reversals" tend to be in response to political pressure, and not as part of a campaign.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 5, 2004 11:45 AMIsn't it just a question of core beliefs? George Bush has a set of principles on which he does not waver, but anything outside that he may change his mind or choose not to fight. Forbidding his National Security Advisor from testifying is hardly a core belief.
On the other hand Kerry does not seem to have many (any?) core beliefs. So he may change his mind, decide on a position for political advantage on virtually anything.
Posted by: A at May 5, 2004 12:22 PMA:
Even worse, Kerry will lie about his positions (Cuba, Iraq I, Iraq II, NAFTA, etc.) in response to whomever he speaks with. Clinton did the same, but with a smile. Kerry is incapable of that trick.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 5, 2004 1:32 PMThe most humorous item in the charge that Bush is a flip-flopper: ''When campaigning he said he was against nation-building, but look what he's doing now!'' Well, yeah, but an external event we call 9/11 did change things....
Posted by: PapayaSF at May 5, 2004 2:44 PMJim Hamlen:
Clinton was probably the slickest con man we've ever had in the White House.
Unfortunately, the Clinton con only works for Clinton.
Posted by: Ken at May 6, 2004 12:40 PM