Kerry's Waffle House: Steel Tariff
From the Loonatic Left (Mahatma - WMD Regular):After reading this Detroit Free Press article, Mahatma says:
So Kerry was in favor of imposing the steel tarriffs, but would not impose them now, but would not have removed them?
I'm really trying here but he has me confused...he states clearly that he supported the tarriffs because it was an important 'air grabbing' moment. What does that mean? 'Air grabbing', is this grasping for anything that might help? He opposed removing them but would not reimpose them. He is concerned about the impact on the market of removing them but doesn't want them. Whew.
I quit. Kerry has no idea what he wants to do about steel tarriffs. If he does know, he can't explain it to me. If you understand, please tell me.
Matt's Chat
Kerry is on whatever side you want him to be on...plus, he is on the other side...also, he is in the middle too. What makes Kerry different from Clinton, is that Clinton relied on polls to determine his position; Kerry just take all sides of every position. As a politician in college, there were occasions when this would happen to me and usually it was because I didn't have enough information to make a sound judgment. Ultimately though, you would think a guy running for president would get all the information he needs to make the decision. I was an amateur politician, afterall, and pulling a full load of classes plus rehearsals (music major).I understand nuance. Kerry likes to use that excuse a lot to explain his Senate voting record. The problem is that when you ask him what specific "nuance" changed that required him to change his vote, the answer you get doesn't hold up principles that I look for in a leader. Take the $87 Billion funding vote, for example. Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. Why? As it turns out, Kerry wanted the funding to come from rescinding the tax cuts and voted "no" since he didn't get his way. Never mind that Kerry himself said that a vote of "no" would be irresponsible. In my opinion, that vote of "no" was irresponsible and indicative of the kind of "leader" that Kerry is...a bad one.
Mark's Remarks
You see, this is what most humans would call spinning in a lie and trying to defend lying...hamsters would call it nuancing.....Kerry has no core, he has no vision, that is why he changes his opinions on matters not just by the day anymore, but evidently, as evidenced by these statements, by the second....
You see, Matt and Mahatma, when you have no vision, you end up with unarticulated spew like 'air-grabbing' (does it mean something like oxygen sucking?, or voting for it before voting against it?) and the incomprehensible rambling (oh wait, only us 2nd class conservative types to do that, according to hamster trolls) that Kerry thinks explains a position.....
Like Matt, I have been involved in politics, in college and other arenas. There are times for nuancing, but you have to explain the nuances with something other than: "it's none of your business, Are you a Republican?" or any of the other dodge phrases Kerry has used.
And, bringing up the 87 billion vote....as Matt wrote, Kerry said voting against supplying our troops was irresponsible....note, no nuance here...there was no: voting against is irreponsible, except when I don't get funding from tax rollbacks, or no statement saying that voting against the troops was irresponsible except when Hillary said so, or anything...he flatly said voting against the troops was irresponsible...and what did he do? He voted against the 87 Billion for the troops! Either he was not thinking too clearly, or he simply has no core....Either way, incidents like these show he is not capable of firm leadership.....
