Boyda's contortions to straddle the fence on Iraq are continuing to backfire, according to the Journal World. Protestors who came to her Lawrence meeting didn't like her answers to the questions about funding the war.
Even more funny, though not surprising, was Boyda's verbal contradiction.
First she said, “I will fund the troops, and I have said all along that I will,” she said.
This seems like an unequivocal statement. I will fund. I will and have said all along that I will. Sounds like a clear position to me . . .
But then in just a few moments time, she changed her mind:
Boyda said she’ll consider cutting war funding in September, when military leaders are scheduled to report to Congress on the outcome of the troop surge.
“For the first time ... I have to consider cutting funding,” she said. “This is not a good decision, but staying the course is a worse one.”
If you've said all along you will fund the troops, then why would you consider cutting funding? If this is a core value, that you won't cut off the funding for our men and women standing in harms way, why consider it at all?
Maybe what she meant to say earlier was, "I might continue to fund the troops and have said all along that I might."
Nancy Boyda seems to have no moral compass. She is easily swayed and will readily change her story depending on the group she's talking to.
While I don't agree with the protestors that showed up Saturday on the merits of pulling our troops out of Iraq, I am glad they are holding Nancy Boyda's feet to the fire. It is clear she made promises to the Bush hating, anti-war wing of her party and they want her to get off the fence and back on to the side she promised to be on.
Dedicated to the proposition that Nancy Boyda is a one termer.