Did Kerry and/or Edwards vote for the Bush tax cuts?

[TexasSissy]

I've seen differing opinions on this. Does anyone know the answer for sure?

[girl gone mad]

1. Kerry..

voted against the Bush tax cuts, but for his own version of tax cuts.

Not sure about Edwards.

[Caution]

2. Vote-smart.org

Kerry voted: NO
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3004&can_id=S0421103

Edwards Voted: NO
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3004&can_id=CNC68243

[NV1962]

3. From CJR: Cutting Through the Tax Cut Rhetoric

Source: http://www.cjr.org/blog/archives/cat_fact_check.asp#000101

Fact Check
Cutting Through the Tax Cut Rhetoric

Somebody screwed up on the key campaign issue of tax cuts today. Compare these two passages about Gen. Wesley Clark's attacks on his two main rivals yesterday in Tennessee.

First, Paul Schwartzmann and Vanessa Williams for The Washington Post:

• (Clark) added, "I don't understand how John Edwards and John Kerry can criticize the state of the economy when they voted for George Bush's tax cuts that gave tax cuts mostly to wealthy Americans."
  
  Edwards voted against two of the three major tax cuts that have been passed into law since Bush took office. Kerry voted for one of the plans, rejected another and did not vote on the third.

Then there is John Glionna and Eric Slater for the Los Angeles Times. After quoting Clark criticizing Kerry and Edwards for voting for President Bush's tax cuts, Glionna and Slater write:

• Kerry opposed both of the Bush tax cuts. And the Edwards camp later released a statement to rebut Clark.
  
  "The fact is, Senator Edwards voted against Bush's tax cuts and has proposed rolling back his tax cuts for the wealthy, he has a plan to fix and fund No Child Left Behind, and has been a strong advocate for more international involvement in military action and reconstruction in Iraq," the statement said.

The Post and the Times are contradicting each other, both about the number of tax cuts, and about Kerry's and Edwards's votes. So let's sort this out.

First, as even the LA Times itself has written, there were indeed three major Bush tax cuts (2001, 2002, and 2003) as The Washington Post reports, not two, as the Times states in error.

More important, Kerry did not "oppose both of the Bush tax cuts" (of which there were in fact three). As the Post tells us, he voted for one, against another, and did not vote on a third.

As for Edwards, instead of simply running his campaign's canned response, the Times might have helped readers get to the bottom of the issue, by pointing out that though Edwards did vote against two of the cuts (in 2001 and 2003), he voted for the 2002 cut. And the Post wins no prizes here either. Instead of saying simply that "Edwards voted against two of the three major tax cuts", Schwartzmann and Williams might have added that he voted for another.

(In fact, both papers did better than the local Knoxville News Sentinel, which, other than running Edwards's statement, didn't even bother to point out that there was anything misleading about Clark's original charge.)

It's precisely when charges are flying in the heat of battle that reporters can be of the most value to readers, simply by laying out the facts.

In this case, all parties cited flunked that elementary test.

--Thomas Lang and Zachary Roth

Posted at 11:09 AM

[PurityOfEssence]

7. This is radically misleading

Read carefully: they voted for the 2002 bill, which was to extend unemployment benefits, send money to New York and provide some temporary business tax breaks.

"The Bush Tax Cuts" refer colloquially and undeniably to the '01 and '03 tax cuts. Any other usage of this is deliberate obfuscation. This is just plain wrong.

Edwards voted against BOTH of the the Bush Tax Cuts. Clark knows full well what he was saying, and the response from the Edwards camp was factual in every sense: it told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Clark owes a HUGE apology.

More important than just undoing the damage from this calumny, I'd say he needs to look us all in the eye and disprove that he's reckless, sloppy and unprincipled.

Any Clark supporters care to respond?

[NV1962]

11. Spin it anyway you like... they both voted FOR Bush's tax cuts.

That was Wes Clark's point - and he's right.

I quoted a source with a comprehensive overview of Kerry and Edwards' voting records, and you can't get past your initial partial quote?

How rich. How eloquent. How typical of Washington DC politics.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. You're wrong; you can't even read what you're quoting

"The Bush Tax Cuts" are the cuts of '01 and '03; the '02 bill extended unemployment benefits, etc., as I state below. This is what is meant by the phrase, and that is undeniable fact.

Edwards voted against both of them. Kerry voted against one, and I don't know the circumstances by which he didn't vote on one of them, but he sure as hell didn't vote "for it" as Clark claims.

It's all very easy to pooh-poo the actions of others, but you are absolutely incorrect in your analysis of the evidence you yourself present.

[NV1962]

22. Have *you* read it?

Sure... there's this bit:

• The bill I sign this morning will allow the extension of jobless benefits by another 13 weeks, and even longer in states with high unemployment rates.

But the, there's also this bit:

• This bill will also stimulate economic growth by extending net operating loss rules and by granting some alternative minimum tax relief.

That's a tax cut, neat & dry.

Need it in bigger print?

[AP]

26. That's supposed to be incriminating?

I guarantee you Clark would have voted the same way had he had the rhetorical skills to get himself elected to the Senate, which I doubt he has.

[blm]

30. Purity is right and you haven't refuted her.

And also, Kerry DID vote against the 2001 and the 2003 taxcut. He was not present when the bill came BACK out of committee. But, his inituial vote against is clear.

The GOP trick to throw in a tax cut along with the extension of unemployment benefits is something you want to hold AGAINST Kerry and Edwards?

When people hear "Bush's taxcuts" you know darn well they think the 2001 and 2003 taxcuts.

To assume differently is DISINGENUOUS.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. No, they voted against them and fought very hard in the process

Dean used this lie earlier on, and ducked when confronted. Clark is now using it, and it is scurrilous.

Edwards, in particular, is much maligned by this: it's much more of a personal risk voting against them coming from North Carolina than from Massachusetts. (Not that Kerry's any slouch either, mind you.)

Clark, with this, shows himself to be deeply unprincipled; he knows better, and as first in his class and a Rhodes scholar, dimness and ignorance can't be used as excuses. He also knows that this was brought out earlier and shot down.

What they did do was try to float a smaller, compromise bill on the '03 dividend tax cut when they knew that they couldn't muster the votes to defeat the big giveaway. This is TO BE COMMENDED. They didn't just give up when they knew they couldn't win, they tirelessly fought a rearguard action to lessen the damage. Clark knows this, and deliberately distorts when it's a core issue of the campaign. I am furious.

Clark supporters should speak out about this, and he should retract it. This is, by the strict, loose and any other definition a LIE.

Clark is proving himself to be a reckless as Dean has been at times, and this is deplorable. Edwards and Kerry had to stand up and be counted on things like this; Dean and Clark did not.

What do we have to go on with Clark other than his word? He has virtually no record. Now, we find that his word is repeatedly, incessantly spotty. He may very well serve as a spoiler in this race, and hurt the eventual candidate with this nastiness in the process; it would be bad enough if true, but when it's false, it's...well, it's just...

[NV1962]

5. They voted *FOR* it: the naked, probably therefore uncomfortable FACT. n/t

If professional politicians can't live with their votes, they shouldn't ask for them.

Scurrilous? Nope - a Washington outsider on his way to take the White House.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. You are absolutely wrong!

This is ridiculous. Read my other post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're just incorrect and not deceptive, but Clark owes an apology and retraction.

It's one thing for him to be confused about what he might have done in any various situations, but to not be able to read a record or be truthful, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Partisanship is one thing, but you are wrong by definition.

[NV1962]

12. I submit you to my post #3

Have Kerry and Edwards voted in favor of Bush's tax cuts, yes or no?

I submit it's "yes" - what say you?

[PurityOfEssence]

21. The answer is NO. They did not vote for the Bush Tax Cuts

Once and for all, NO. No, not even, not even slightly, the end period.

One can quibble that Kerry didn't vote on one of them, but he sure as hell didn't vote for it.

Please address this with other Clark partisans.

[NV1962]

23. Alexandrian ferries also run on the Nile...

Typing "no" doesn't negate the issue.

You know... I can live with a response that in essence says that yes, it was a tax cut, but no, the vote was neither in support of nor meant to be aiding and abetting the reichwingers' "starving the beast."

But your insisting in narrowly denying it was a vote in favor of a tax cut (promoted, again, by Bush) only helps in reaffirming the image that Bush is a symptom of a larger problem that must be remedied by a Washington outsider.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. Show me how the '02 bill was part of the "Bush Tax Cuts"

This was an interim bill dealing with extending unemployment benefits, sending disaster relief to New York and giving some stopgap business breaks. This was not part of the big tax crusade from the administration.

Even if the business elements can be shown as part of the evil fascist giveaway, that alone is a colossal distortion to say these guys voted "for the tax cuts" (very plural). They fought against the essence and spirit of the tax cuts, as well as the literal mechanisms of the bills.

You are deliberately misleading. You have been chipped down to now claiming that a very small part of the supplemental relief bill might come under the header of collaboration, yet the bill was more of a relief for the unemployed and displaced.

How can you continue this? You went from backing up a smear that they both voted for the whole ignominious greedfest down to claiming that a bill that wasn't part of either tax relief package should somehow be tied to both and even represent the whole evil.

The Bush tax cuts were this: the '01 tax cut and the '03 tax cut. That's how they were presented, that's what economists and politicians consider them to have been, and Kerry and Edwards DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM. Neither of them did. They fought long and hard.

For this, you quibble and sustain an unprincipled liar in his slander.

[NV1962]

36. "unprincipled liar" too huh...

Here's my "retort" then - Kerry and Edwards are experienced and well-qualified Senators: slick as an eel in a bucket of snot.

I'm not interested in pursuing this any further with you.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Lying is worse

Presuming that others have to behave while one can do as one pleases is a form of privilege. It's imperious and anti-democratic. We should all be held to the same set of standards, and if not, then find a different form of society.

Now I'll talk like some of the more strident Clark supporters: you don't want to pursue this with me because you have been conclusively proven wrong by more than just one person, refuse to admit it and can't accept such uppity defiance. Many civilians don't like the officer class for precisely this kind of behavior, and it's just one of the many drawbacks in this situation.

[AP]

6. I want to elaborate on your last paragraph.

Although I guess I'd trust Clark to WANT to do the right thing with taxes, I highly doubt he has the rhetorical skills to DELIVER it.

Discursively, Edwards is remarkable, and I have no doubt that he'd be a great persuader, as Lincoln was, because they have the same set of skills, born of VERY similar experiences and concerns.

Discursively and rhetorically, Clark is a mess. The fact that he has to rely on this kind of argument against his opponents is another bit of evidence that he isn't getting much traction being persuasive.

If Clark became president, I don't have any confidence that he'd be able to make the argument to the public that would need to be made so that people could wrap their heads around this issue, and so that they would petition their representatives to do the right thing.

[NV1962]

We don't need "rhetoric champs" - we need a DOER

Exit Edwards and Kerry, for being part of the Washington credibility problem.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Clark is not a "doer", he's a CRITIC

A critic, as a political scientist friend Jim Desveaux likes to say, is "a eunuch in a whorehouse".

He's sought schooling for his troops' kids, he's negotiated for treaties and he's led troops, but he's also a corporatist, a lobbyist, a pundit and a would-be knight in shining armor.

The President of the United States has to be able to speak clearly, have some finesse, be able to distinguish reality from horseshit and be willing to stand by his/her words and actions. He is woefully deficient in all of these.

His action in LYING about his opponents on a very important issue like this--clearly, and beyond any quibbling, mind you--is a career killer. This is the exact same lie Dean told; he never paid for it because he caused himself so much trouble with so many other missteps that the whole overcame the parts.

This man is not trustworthy if he doesn't retract this in a major way.

Edwards and Kerry fought the good fight on this and many other things.

[NV1962]

14. He's a critic because it's CRITICAL to change "politics as usual"

Nothing wrong with that.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Nice rhetorical flourish there; but you're not addressing the issue

Too bad his wordsmithing can't match yours. But enough of this banter.

He lied. He knew full well what he was doing, and he did it against people who did the right thing on a very important issue.

He's avoiding responsibility for his lying, and doing unfair damage.

Regardless of anything else, this does HUGE damage to him.

How can we believe this man? He can't even really remember whether he voted a couple of times for Reagan or not. Well. Sure a prodigal son is a cool thing to be, but his conversion is far from proven.

All we have to go on with this man is his word, and now he's shown himself to be a liar. He shouldn't even be considered for the office after this.

Where is the outcry? Even kindergarteners know that lying is bad. Does this guy think he's still entitled to his cookies and milk? I think he needs a time out. I suggest a few years.

[NV1962]

34. You're now accusing Clark of being a liar?

(Edited for clarity and typing atrocities - spitting nails and typing don't mix, evidently...)

That's a very serious charge, which goes way beyond objection to his point - and I take exception to the charge.

I provided material which unambiguously supports Clark's claim.

In response, you provided rhetoric without proof, and now you top it off with an accusation of lieing.

Wow. Banter you said?

Let's cut through this BS.

A major chunk of votes out there belongs to people who are upset with the Democratic leadership in Washington, specifically: their meekness and unwillingness to stand up and fight Bush in Congress.

I'll grant you that it is understandable that people give someone usurping the high Office of the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt. It is understandable, and beyond that, it is what explains past words and positions of (say) Edwards, Kerry - and Clark himself.

Let's be fair and square here: for me, the issue isn't whether it's a disqualifier for a candidate if at some point or another trust was placed in the President's integrity. If it were, we'd have precious few candidates in the race.

The underlying issue here is whether candidates can make a credible case in advocating for change of policies in the White House.

I am not going into assessment of any individual candidate's integrity (although I do take note of your apparently reckless willingness to do so) but I am advocating the validity and the necessity of presenting a clear-cut and substantially differentiated electoral choice here. Here's a rendition of an oft-mutating elementary question, that I find inappropriately mingled in this issue of "supporting the Bush tax cuts" too:

Are we willing to embrace change, or do we limit our choices by seeking the most marketable version of "our" side?

Oddly enough perhaps, I think that chosing the former leads to Dennis Kucinich only. Chosing the latter would presently lead to Kerry only, based on very little else but him being the currently much-vaunted "front-runner."

The thing is, I disagree with that earlier question: I think it's a false and misleading choice, not unlike Bush's false "choice between liberty or security" - as exemplified in the USA Patriot Act.

I think a very good solution to the problem starts by taking one step back, and contemplate in how far the decision making process (and relevant players therein) has in effect enabled Bush, notwithstanding lone Congressional voices such as Dennis Kucinich.

Therefore, I conclude that a Washington outsider is what is needed. Someone who combines executive leadership experience with the necesary skills to be a successful President and lead the country -- through good governance, with accountability and transparency -- back to the future; selecting adequate representatives to fulfill their role and duty in Congress is another issue.

That is my essential proposition.

Wes Clark has pointed out -- not only with his speech yesterday in Jackson, TN but also today in Lebanon, TN -- that voters have a reason to be distrustful of candidates espousing "anti-Bush" rhetoric, when in Congress they bought into Bush's rhetoric themselves on important issues, effectively enabling him - and with it, the current mess.

Wes Clark presents himself as a candidate who is ready, able and willing to confront and resolve the problem from within - by approaching it as an outsider.

Unlike Kerry and Edwards, Clark represents a clear ticket to change, not by being a professional follower, but offering experienced leadership.

You're free to paint the nagging contradictions of being part of the problem as a "lie" - the contradictions and the problems remain as they are.

You want a "retraction" for Clark's comments? Here's the response.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Yes, I'm saying that Wesley Clark deliberately lied

I'm not just getting around to that, I started with that. He knew full well what he was doing, and when confronted with it, his people don't even address the issue. Such bravery. I thought he was a no-nonsense, take your medicine like a man kind of guy. That's puerile.

The campaign's response that you send me to doesn't even address the tax issue. Edwards voted against all of the Bush tax cuts and fought hard against them. Clark knows this. To say that a supplemental bill to extend unemployment benefits and grant tax breaks to businesses hurt by the 9-11 attack means that he "voted for the tax cuts" is morally, ethically and literally false, misleading and plain ol' dirty pool.

He's trying to duck this by not mentioning it.

This is lying, and it shows poor character.

The fact that I've confronted many of his supporters here, and have only found remorse from one is not a very good reflection on your faction. Do you feel privileged? Is he good merely because he says he's good? Who is he to do that? That sounds like Dean's approach.

One is the sum total of one's actions; Clark has very little pertinent information available about his, so we have to take his word for it.

Do you seriously think that this kind of deliberate lying is in any way acceptable? It would be more so if he had some kind of track record in government, but all we have to go on with him is his word, and he's now shown that to be worthless.

Edwards, for all his faults, hasn't lied about the other candidates. He also has, by many groups' analyses, the best record in the Senate. The American Conservative Union considers him to the left of Dennis Kucinich, so for Clark to tar him with being some kind of water boy for the administration is as ridiculous and nasty as Dean calling Kerry a Republican.

Dean may have gotten the part about your guy being a Republican correct, though, but only at a stretch. I would like to hear some kind of explanation why he was having a hard time deciding whether to run as a Democrat or a Republican, if anyone's of a mind to actually deal with reality. Remember that this: "...I was either going to be the loneliest Republican, or..."? Why would one even entertain joining the party of selfishness and greed? Why would one even entertain voting for Reagan, much less do it twice? (Of course, if he could ACTUALLY REMEMBER whether he did or not; that's a flimsy excuse for an incredibly smart guy to use, and even if true, it shows that politics is hardly even a passing fancy with him.) Why would one vote for Nixon? Why would one EVER do a fundraiser for the Bush administration? When he was doing that, it was already VERY APPARENT that they were a bunch of monarchists. What gives?

Yes, if you'd been paying attention, I've called Clark a deliberate and destructive liar on the tax voting issue, and that's what he is.

[AP]

15. We need communicators and persuaders. Clark is neither.

Like I said, rhetorically, he's a mess. Discursively, he's not all that great either.

I've said it before: his son is great. But his son can't go out and give speaches everytime Clark needs to persuade Congreass and the people to do the right thing.

This is the precise reason why Clark isn't doing well.

[NV1962]

18. Had a Great Communicator before

He brought us genocide and ran it as the proud work of "freedom fighters"

We don't need a change of old-guard Great Communicators - we need essential change.

And in November, that's what people will cast their vote for.

[AP]

19. And imagine if he had been a Democrat, like Clinton, Kennedy, and FDR?

He'd have been John Edwards.

[NV1962]

24. Good grief

Now that's a winner! In that vein, with not too much exaggeration: imagine Hitler with Mother Theresa's convictions!

Spinning in and into graves... Dig deep, dig deeper, keep digging still - Australia is right there at the end of that tunnel...

[AP]

25. Hitler is the rhetorical opposite of Kennedy, JFK, Clinton and Edwards.

The total opposite.

[NV1962]

35. Let's stop that right here and right now

I don't want to pursue comparisons with Hitler, and I don't feel like exploring Hitler's rhetoric qualities.

I used that name only to present a both striking and ridiculous paradox, and only to point out that "rhetoric qualities" do not speak to substance.

[AP]

38. FDR's rhetorical skills kept US from going fascist. JFK's probably got him

shot.

Clinton's won him two terms despite the de facto corporatocracy. Gore's allowed Bush to get elected.

I think it's worth discussing this issue.

[killbotfactory]

8. They proposed 900billion in tax cuts instead of 1.3trillion

The first time Bush got a bug up his ass about tax cuts.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. On Bush tax cuts...

The first round there were a few dem senators who voted for them. The second round 48 dems voted no with I believe Chafee and Snowe voting no as well and Zell Miller voting yes to tie the vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Here is more information on the 2003 Tax cut votes

Taken from an April 2003 newspaper account of Bob Graham's campaign. He, unlike Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman, actually voted to eliminate all of Bush's Tax Cuts, the others voted against that measure.

"I voted against any tax cut," Graham said. "It's irresponsible to be cutting taxes at a time that you're facing record deficits and a war of undetermined cost". Graham pointed to North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

"Both Joe and John, as well as John Kerry, voted for the $350 billion tax cut," Graham said in an interview with The Associated Press. However, on final passage, Georgia Sen. Zell Miller was the only Democrat who voted in favor of the budget that includes $350 billion in tax cuts.

In Congress, there was an earlier vote in which Edwards, Lieberman and Kerry voted against completely eliminating President Bush's proposed $726 billion tax cut. Graham supported that measure, but it didn't pass the Senate."

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/5739629.htm

[blm]

31. That vote was to REDUCE the bill from 550 to 350. Be honest.

Then they didn't even vote for that.

[bain_sidhe]

43. YOU be honest... they voted FOR a $350 bln tax cut. Period. n/t

[blm]

44. NO. They did NOT vote for that 350 bil. in the final vote.

They voted to REDUCE the 550 number to 350 number and voted against even that.

Facts are facts.

If you want to prove they voted for the 350 bil taxcut then produce the vote on the final bill.

[blondeatlast]

27. From FactCheck.org

Kerry and Edwards were both among the "Nay" votes against Bush's 2001 tax-cut bill -- the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" -- when it first came up in the Senate on May 23, 2001. It passed 62-38.
And on May 26, 2001 when the House-Senate compromise bill came up for the final Senate vote required to send the measure on for the President's signature, Edwards voted "Nay." Kerry was absent but his vote would not have made a difference: the bill passed 58-33
The second Bush tax-cut bill came up two years later, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003." And both Kerry and Edwards voted "Nay" when it was first considered on May 15, 2003. It passed 51-49.
And when the JGTRRA tax-cut bill came up for final passage May 23, 2003, Edwards and Kerry both voted "Nay." The vote was 50-50, and the measure became law only because Vice President Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote in his Constitutional role as President of the Senate.

more http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=138

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Thank you. Clark lied; it's as simple as that, just like Dean did.

How can anyone not repudiate his statement? I'm aghast.

Thanks for the concise post.

[Quixote1818]

32. Actually Clark was telling the truth if you consider this:

(Note: Kerry and Edwards did vote for for an economic stimulus package in 2002 that contained a hefty but temporary tax cut for businesses, currently set to expire at the end of this year. Unlike the two much larger Bush tax cuts, this one contained no cuts for individual taxpayers.The measure also extended unemployment benefits for 13 additional weeks for individuals who had exhausted their 26 weeks of regular coverage. The "Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002" passed the Senate March 8, 2002, with only nine senators voting against it.)

Clark said they voted for tax cuts and they did. So Clark was basicaly telling the truth.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Wrong. The quote is "they voted for them".

This is an undeniable use of a collective noun, and it means that they voted for ALL OF THEM. One could quibble that it's colloquially fair to say that if they voted for most, then he's somewhat correct, but this package is not one of "the Bush Tax Cuts". It was a supplemental bill, as I've stated elsewhere. This one bill doesn't even come under the header of "Bush Tax Cuts"; it was, once again, a bill to provide extention of unemployment benefits, disaster relief for New York and temporary business tax relief. Only the latter is a tax cut of any form, and it's part of a supplemental bill.

You are splitting hairs, and even that is grammatically incorrect. As far as broad intent goes, CLARK IS UNEQUIVOCALLY LYING HERE. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's doing it to make people think that they caved to the administrations capricious greed, when they not only voted against all of the bills that are the "Bush Tax Cuts" in both '01 and '03. This is clearly a smear of the ugliest sort, and your semantic defense is factually and connotatively incorrect. He's trying to show how they have no spine, when they fought very hard against all of the Bush Tax Cuts. Can you please break ranks with the unprincipled and at least admit it to yourself. How can we trust this guy? All we have is his word; he has virtually no record. His word doesn't mean squat.

This is deeply ugly on his part, especially if he doesn't repudiate it. I simply can't believe that this was just the heat of the moment; he absolutely knows better.

Is Clark saying that they were horrible for voting to extend unemployment benefits due to the 9-11 disaster? Please clue me in here.

[Quixote1818]

37. A little Anal Retentive don't you think? If lot of people get a tax cut

then those are Tax Cuts! Works for me.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Then by that flimsy logic,

Wes Clark is a dedicated corporatist, a lobbyist insider, a pundit who was perfectly willing to trumpet the Republican line and someone who can't seem to make difinitive decisions, even though that's supposed to be his strong suit. He got fired from his command, has many enemies in the officer corps, a bad temper, an imperious strain to his personality and no qualms about lying about his opponents for personal gain.

As a corporate player, he's intimately linked with the military industrial complex, making money from the deaths of others. As a lobbyist, he's earned money by trying to subvert the system from the inside, when he has the effrontery to call himself an outsider. Fast and loose with election money laws, he tried to have it both ways being paid to speak while a candidate.

He's for abortion rights, even though he's against abortion personally, and is on record as having no problems adding new restrictions to access to the procedure, but wants us to think that he'll definitely be a champion to keep Roe in place and still be a good Catholic while being for abortion and wouldn't ever attempt to get rid of it. Huh?

His word is his bond, even though it's just fine to lie about his opponents. Even though he hasn't lived in civilian life for most of his existence, he still deeply knows what the broad populace needs, wants and feels. Having worked in a rigid hierarchy with guaranteed obedience, he's uniquely silled to navigate the world of politics, which is based on lack of obedience, agreement and coexistence as equals.

If just a whiff of truth justifies a statement, then this guy is everything to everybody; but then to be that, one must also be nobody to anybody.

It's all very funny.

What's galling about him and Dean is that they can just sit there and snipe how they would have done this or wouldn't have done that, and they're doing it against two very courageous and noble individuals who have cold, stark records to have selectively represented by various rascals. It's like they don't have to show their cards, while K&E have theirs showing on the table.

The lying issue was just the corker for me. That is unfathomably unprincipled. I can't see why it doesn't cause outrage. It disgusts me. If it came from someone who had a record I could examine, it would make me very dismayed, but I could at least have some evidence of how the person had acted. With his flip-flopping and now outright lying, I have no idea what to expect.

At least a couple of Clark supporters have shown some decency and been bothered by this, but far too few, and that disgusts me.

[AP]

47. Ouch. That's a good post.

[SangamonTaylor]

39. Clark supporters are really stretching

just like Dean did. I wonder if he'll duck the question when they confront him about it. This is very sloppy and unprincipled by Clark. Not that I haven't come to expect that recently.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Absolutely correct: "just like Dean did"

The parallels between the screeching demands to be annointed as morally superior and the deliberate falsehoods are striking; the two campaigns have much the same flavor.

[Uzybone]

41. Looks like Clark

has told a bald faced lie on this one. I hope he doesnt continue it.