Am I the only one who noticed that when Woodward’s book came out, Kerry was outraged when he believed that Bush had made a secret deal with the Saudi’s to keep the price of oil down until after the Presidential election? He said the American people were outraged too and that this was totally unacceptable as far as the American people were concerned.
Now Nancy Pilosi and Kerry are saying Bush is failing in his responsibility to keep the price of gasoline low. If he was doing his job, they say, Bush should be “jaw boning” with the Saudis/OPEC to get the price of oil lower.
Does this only mean cutting deals is only okay if its not to help Bush get elected or that getting the price of oil lower is okay only if the “jaw boning” is public?
Do Pilosi and Kerry really think that showing the world which OPEC member is undercutting OPEC by increasing production will be an effective means of obtaining that OPEC member’s cooperation? Or do they just believe that the American public is too stupid to realize the idiocy of this.
Is Kerry as President really going to benefit this country? Or will it only benefit the agenda of getting Bush out of office?
Frankly, I find Kerry’s flip flopping on virtually every issue much more embarrassing than Bush’s being flustered when sometimes answering a question or having an occasional “poor” quality press conference. At least his message isn’t changing 180 degrees every month or so.
Are you really serious about wanting me to consider putting Kerry in the leadership position of the free world? Imagining Kerry as President is comical, if it wasn’t so scary.
So there’s never been any flip-flopping by the present administration? Say, about the formation of a new government in Iraq and it being secular or not?
The present government is largely above criticism, has never done anything wrong, and to consider this is apparently inconceivable. The present “war” is a crass and tragic example of this. It has nothing to do with staying the course. Why keep sailing in the same direction when you know you’re going to the wrong place? I’d rather have someone who shows themselves to be above rigid dogma than unable to admit mistakes have been made.
I believe Kerry’s outrage was aimed at the allegation that the administration was manipulating the price of oil (up and down) for political purposes, irrespective of the benefit to the economy.
Ah, flip-flopping. Is your perception of Kerry as bad as the hypocrisy of the Bush administration? Here’s the opening paragraph from a NYTimes article about administration officials touting spending in programs that Bush is/was trying to cut:
“Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.”
Can you give us some specific examples of flip-flopping every month or so? I see this charge so often, I’d like to see the basis. You did say “every month or so”, or was that just hyperbole?
Do I recall that Bush strongly fought the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, then said in a press conference that he wished he had formed it earlier? Do I recall that Bush refused to let Rice testify in public, but then changed his mind? Do I recall that Bush made a campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then reneged shortly after taking office? Is this flip-flopping, or do you call it something else?
in reality there is not much the president can do to change the price of gas. Refinery production compared to capacity in the US is running above 90%. (from NPR yesterday)
OPEC just met and is thinking about increasing production. That will have more effect than anything Bush or Kerry, if president could do.
Release strategic reserves? Great I’m going to pay .03 less for the next two weeks. big deal.
Just buy stock in oil companies that pay dividends. Think of it as a rebate.
Is Kerry as President really going to benefit this country? Or will it only benefit the agenda of getting Bush out of office?
That is the question. I believe that many people are focused on the “agenda of getting Bush out of office” not what is best for the country. People (including on this board) have said that. This is really discomforting to me. If you truly believe that Kerry will do a better job fine, but this idea of just voting against Bush seems short sighted. You owe to yourself, and everyone else frankly, to make a vote for the person (and policies) you believe in the most, however little belief there is.
That is a great comment. With all the political bashing on this site - that is one of the first posts I have seen that would seem to me to be 100% solid, air tight and with no plausible negitive reaction. Kerry just scares me. He seems to have no honor.