Kerry DID vote for the 87 billion before he voted against it!

[ButterflyBlood]

anyone else sick of the right wing lemmings mocking this line? What's wrong with it. There's nothing inaccurate about it.

[nickinSTL]

1. Well, yeah...

but, it wasn't the same thing, was it?

That said, Kerry putting it that way was unfortunate.

Bush opposed the $87 billion before he supported it! Flip-flop!

[ButterflyBlood]

2. that's true!

* flip-flopped just as much!

[michigandem2]

3. all the mocking isn't responding to any questions these yahoos

have to answer..I think everyone is tired of hearing the same old tired lines...like the 9th position..okay fine...but what the hell is YOUR position..it kinda is bad for * to bash Kerry on the position he took on iraq...becasue * can't change course..he is trying to be "resolute"

I hope in the debates..Kerry can smash him for thees attacks...just come out swinging...

[UnapologeticLiberal]

4. That has been so misconstrued

It was stupid of Kerry to phrase that the way he did, but it has been taken completely out of context...if I understand correctly, he voted for a version that contained an amendment repealing the tax cuts on the top bracket in order to offset the $87 billion, and when that version failed, he voted against the final version.

[zulchzulu]

5. GOP DID vote against the 87 billion before they voted for it

Yes, that's right!

The Repugs voted against not allowing the rich to get a free ride and nice tax cut while we were at war.

Then they voted for the rich to get a free ride and a nice tax cut while we paid for the war.

[polmaven]

9. And, if I remember correctly,

Bush had threatened to VETO the first version...the one Kerry voted FOR. Of course, that version did not pass, so you are absolutely correct. The republicans voted against the $87B before they voted for it.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. The BILL changed; it's not that his POSITION changed

It's not a flip-flop, and it's a flim-flam to say that it is: he didn't change his vote on the same bill, the changes in the bill made it a whole different kettle of fishiness.

He wasn't cutting off urgently needed support for the troops; this was for spending 6 months away. The guilty ones are the ones playing politics with the safety of the troops; by trying to leverage the President to pay for his proposals instead of borrowing for them, Kerry had our interests at heart.

Besides that, it was a blank check to war profiteers; if Bush cared about the troops, he'd strip out the urgent stuff and have them vote about that, leaving the murky reconstruction pork for a separate vote. Profits are more important to this man than our safety or the safety of our troops. Remember: this is the man who stonewalled creating the Department of Homeland Security unless he could recind the union coverage of 170,000 workers; crushing unions is more important to him than fighting terrorists.

[booklearninboy]

8. "Flip-flop" is a flim-flam...

POE, I like the way you put that! I'm working on my own "flip-flop -> flim-flam" soundbites now.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi booklearninboy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[booklearninboy]

12. Thanks newyawker99!

I lurk a lot; don't get to post that often. Today I'm taking a mental health (relatively speaking) break.

This should give you a sense of the quality of the work on my desk: I'd rather read and respond to hate-Kerry pro-death propaganda than do my job.

[xrepub]

7. The actual facts

The 87 billion bill was 67 bil for the troops and 20 bil for reconstruction.

The dems asked that it be put into 2 bills so that they could all support the troops immediately and consider the reconstruction at liesure - turned down by repugs

Then the dems asked for details on the reconstruction part to be put into the bill - turned down by repugs

Then the dems asked that part of the reconstruction monies be a loan rather than a grant - bush threatened to veto the bill if that was included.

The original bill then came up for a vote with passage assured. Kerry voted against it on principle.

Note that Kerry never placed the bill in jeopardy. Bush threatened to stop it if he did not get everything he wanted. His veto would probably have stopped the bill.


These are the facts, and anyone willing to look at the congressional record and archives from the NY Times can easily prove it. It's a bit long winded for a stump speech, though it needs to be said.

[Arkana]

11. No, actually there isn't

Kerry voted for a version of the $87 billion initially, but then the Boy King, Uncle Sneer, and Grand Vizier Turdblossom threw tantrums and said that other provisions (like another huge tax cut for the rich) had to be added or the Boy King would say "NO!" and start crying until his wifey could get him his favorite stuffed bear.

Consequently, Kerry voted against the added provisions because they overshadowed what the actual bill was about. This is where their ludicrous talking point comes from.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[okieinpain]

14. no that's " I wanted a spending cut to pay for it"

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.