John Kerry's shifting stands

[Cheswick2.0]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/12/john_kerrys_shifting_stands/

I don't know what the authors politics are but he clearly doesn't think much of his senator.
***************************************************************

IN THE 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view.


His name is John Kerry.

<snip>

Here's how it works: Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."

But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too! Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."

<snip>

Take the Patriot Act. Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a "knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire! Kerry voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. He singled out its money-laundering sections for particular praise but declared that he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation as a whole."

Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act? Absolutely.

The hottest issue in Kerry's home state at the moment is same-sex marriage. Most Massachusetts citizens take only one position on this scorchingly controversial topic, but Kerry doesn't like to limit himself that way.

<more>

[Renew Deal]

1. You can also find a copy of that here:

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3913

[eileen_d]

6. At RNC! What a shock! n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

9. I thought it was funny and quite insightful

RNC not withstanding of course.

[bigtree]

2. It's sad that you've stopped defending your own candidate

And instead are using your time to drag John Kerry down.

Have you lost all hope that you can persuade anyone to support your candidate?

[Zolok]

4. Jeff Jacoby is a monocausal ideologue and a true

American conservative fanatic...he'd happily set fire to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if it meant a drop of one half of one percent in the top tax rate.
To Jeff, everyone is a waffler and a trimmer...
All I know about John Kerry is that he won't waffle or trim in his quest fix Bush's ever growing list of national and international disasters...

I go about this subject in today's blog entry...
www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[regnaD kciN]

14. Maybe he is, but...

...even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Jacoby managed to sum up this liberal Democrat's misgivings about Kerry to a T:

Reviewing the bidding, then, Kerry's position is that he voted against a war he was really for and voted for a war he was really against. But the war he was really for he never said he was for at the time. Except when he was writing to voters to say that he was. And that he wasn't.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. as many Kerry supporters have said

It is all part of the primary process. It is important to get all of this out in the open. Can Kerry take it or not?

[bigtree]

10. Mud-Pies

"Mud-pies gratify one of our first and best instincts. So long as we are dirty, we are pure."

-Charles Dudley Warner (1829–1900),

[regnaD kciN]

15. Don't you understand the rules?

If a mainstream candidate's supporters want to bash an outsider like Dean or Kucinich, it's "justifiable scrutiny for the good of the Party," and the critic is being a good Democrat. If a Dean or Kucinich supporter criticizes a mainstream candidate's stand (or stands, in the plural) on the issues, it's "a betrayal of the Democratic Party," and it's fair game to even suggest that the critic is on the Bush payroll.

:eyes:

[pezcore64]

18. yeah

heck yeah, itd be aweful if he was turning into other canidates supporters of 2 or 3 months ago.

GO DEAN!!

[Monte Carlo]

3. Jeff Jacoby alert...

...a well known Republican concubine and Kerry-hater.

Kerry is obscuring some of his stands, but then again, he's running for president.

[regnaD kciN]

17. And that justifies it???

Kerry is obscuring some of his stands, but then again, he's running for president.

As far as I'm concerned "running for president" doesn't give one carte-blanche to toss all your principles (assuming you ever had any) to the wind.

Besides, if the facts presented in this column are correct, Kerry's been doing this long before he was running for president. (Or maybe that's a short-term view...maybe Kerry's been running for president all his life.)

[Straight Shooter]

5. Boston Globe does not like John Kerry

They once described him as "displaying more profile than courage." They have a right to their opinion. And we have a right to either agree or disagree with their opinion, choice of candidate notwithstanding.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. didn't they endorse him?

I have a right to find the article interesting, candidate choice notwithstanding of course.

[meegbear]

11. Jeff Jacoby

Good source. Maybe you can post some articles from Dick Morris or David Horowitz while you're at it.

[returnable]

12. Oh, boy!

10 years ago he opposed the death penalty for terrorists.

Then a little thing called 9/11 happened.

Now he supports the death penalty for terrorists.

Circumstances changed, and his opinion changed. Happens all the time.

I can't believe Dean folks, of all people, are propping up things like this.

Especially considering their own guy's flip-flop on capital punishment...

[DemNoir]

13. Being able to reconsider an opinion

Is a sign of intelligence in my opinion. It seems that many here admire someone like our president, who will hold the same dopey positions his entire life no matter what the evidence.

I guess you guys just need a "strong leader"

[regnaD kciN]

19. Well, what we DON'T need...

...is someone who'll come down firmly on both sides of every issue, depending on which way the wind is blowing at the moment. Weathervanes rarely make reliable road signs.

The biggest problem with electing someone "intelligent" enough to "reconsider their opinions" (whenever they stand to gain politically by doing so) is that you're essentially electing a blank slate...and you shouldn't be surprised if, once that person is in office, they might not "reconsider their opinion" on every single issue that you backed them for. You may as well elect one of those "magic 8-balls" as president. ("Should I invade Iran?" -- flip! -- "The indications are favorable.")

:eyes:

[library_max]

16. Jacoby's a Bush-apologist right wing hack.

Google him and see for yourself. I'm alerting this thread.