Flip-flopping has been around as long as there have been voters out of earshot from the other. However, it has become more and more difficult to hide from one's flips as the media manages to record every hiccup and burp, and later insure there's a youtube video of the event. Flip-flopping had more inpact in costing Al Gore the election than any Florida hanging-chad, as Tennessee voters demonstrated by not backing V.P. Gore (the supposed 'favorite son') with its electoral votes. His "saying one thing while Senator" and another while "V.P. and later as Pres. candidate" hurt him badly among those who knew him the longest.

Both Sen. McCain and Obama have been claimed to have stated a position on __________ at some time during the past couple of years, and later doing a 180-degree flip on the original position.

Which flip-flop(s) have you considered the most significant?

For me, two are obvious:

Sen. McCain - He has reversed himself possibly twice on immigration law changes by (1) saying that immigration reforms should come first and securing the border second, then (2) reversing that position after the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Reform Bill failed to pass, then (3) as he campaigns, to state that immigration reform is a high priority (with little follow-up on border security).

Sen. Obama - He has reversed himself on gun control by (1) his commentary in Chicago last year where he stated his feeling that the DC gun control law was contitutional and correct, and his voting record in the Illinois State Senate opposing the use of guns for self-defense in urban settings, then (2) reversing that position when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the DC gun control law unconstitutional.

And the real Sen. McCain/Obama is.....? And the true position is....?

I don't care if you Republican or Democrat, but if you never change your mind about anything, then you have stopped learning. We have to change as life and facts evolve. How many times have we heard that "change" is the only constant in our lives? This being so, it stands to reason that an intelligent man may "flip flop" as his knowledge on any one subject increases.

Originally Posted by samhass

I don't care if you Republican or Democrat, but if you never change your mind about anything, then you have stopped learning. We have to change as life and facts evolve. How many times have we heard that "change" is the only constant in our lives? This being so, it stands to reason that an intelligent man may "flip flop" as his knowledge on any one subject increases.

I agree - very wise truism.

It is amazing, though, how many times political candidates "learn" when appearing before different audiences, and the knowledge attained happens to coincide with the leanings of the aurience of the day...

I always thought that "flip-flopping" term was ludicrous. The first time I started hearing it over and over again, was when the Bush camp was pounding on Kerry. And what did we get? A President that never changes his mind, not matter how wrong he is. We're all paying the price for that today.

Hear, hear, Sam!

You got that right Sam. :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup:

Candiddates do change their tune depending on who they are talking to...but that is not flip flopping that is pandering.

I would not vote for someone who didn't have the moral fortitude and intelligence to change his mind when the circumstances called for a realignment of a policy or opinion.

A recent statement by Obama is a case in point...he has stated all along he will bring the troops home from Iraq asap....well now...he is saying he will talk to the field commanders and then formulate a plan...that is the benefit of good advisors and intelligent thinking...not flip flopping....

Don't get the terms mixed up. Flip flopping is the natural response of a politician to be a populist and or get their quid quo pro or get elected.

Changing one's mind comes from the learning referred to above.

And there are times when an individual, let's say like "a" President who should not, would not, could not for reasons only known to a select few....and since the constituency with predetermined views, usually influenced by the media or partisan pandering has their mind made up they choose what they choose.....without REALLY knowing why an individual does what they do.

As the saying goes until such time as you live in the shoes of the person one criticizes you simply have an opinion to which you are entitled, however you do not know!

It is easy to figure when a politician is partisan pedaling, flip flopping, lying.......their lips are moving!!!!!!!!!

BTK

Originally Posted by beady

You got that right Sam. :bigthumbsup: :bigthumbsup:

Candiddates do change their tune depending on who they are talking to...but that is not flip flopping that is pandering.

I would not vote for someone who didn't have the moral fortitude and intelligence to change his mind when the circumstances called for a realignment of a policy or opinion.

A recent statement by Obama is a case in point...he has stated all along he will bring the troops home from Iraq asap....well now...he is saying he will talk to the field commanders and then formulate a plan...that is the benefit of good advisors and intelligent thinking...not flip flopping....

Very well put, Beady.

I agree with Sam.

Two points about the war:

1. Money. It is nice to do good things for other people, even when it will not help ourselves. But when money gets tight, maybe that is not so good. Well, our check book is empty. Sorry Iraq, but maybe we can afford to help you any more.

2. Unlike many on this board, I have a 3 year old son. I would be ok with fighting to protect this country from an invading army, but I am not about to let my son fight and die for someone else's country. There is something to be said for the pride of doing things for yourself. If Iraq ever wants to invade us, okay, we are talking about something. But if it is a war against terrorists, this is not the way to fight it.

The way to fight a war on terrorists is not through conventional means. We highly train and arm 10,000 6 man teams to dress in traditional clothes, go into countries that harbor them, make their way to the leaders (disguised of course) walk up to them, and shoot them. If anyone has ever read "Gorilla Warfare" by Che, you know that this method that our government is trying can and will never work. We put out no more than targets for them to pick off at leisure. Anyone who wants my son to be a target for the next 100 years will not get my vote. Again, this should not be a right or left issue. We have a new enemy and we need to learn how to fight them. We need to change our mindset to a post 9/11 way of thinking and the republicans are still fighting the cold war. Sorry, but that one is over.... We are in serious need of some flip floppers!!!!!

Originally Posted by jeckyl

I agree with Sam.

Two points about the war:

1. Money. It is nice to do good things for other people, even when it will not help ourselves. But when money gets tight, maybe that is not so good. Well, our check book is empty. Sorry Iraq, but maybe we can afford to help you any more.

2. Unlike many on this board, I have a 3 year old son. I would be ok with fighting to protect this country from an invading army, but I am not about to let my son fight and die for someone else's country. There is something to be said for the pride of doing things for yourself. If Iraq ever wants to invade us, okay, we are talking about something. But if it is a war against terrorists, this is not the way to fight it.

The way to fight a war on terrorists is not through conventional means. We highly train and arm 10,000 6 man teams to dress in traditional clothes, go into countries that harbor them, make their way to the leaders (disguised of course) walk up to them, and shoot them. If anyone has ever read "Gorilla Warfare" by Che, you know that this method that our government is trying can and will never work. We put out no more than targets for them to pick off at leisure. Anyone who wants my son to be a target for the next 100 years will not get my vote. Again, this should not be a right or left issue. We have a new enemy and we need to learn how to fight them. We need to change our mindset to a post 9/11 way of thinking and the republicans are still fighting the cold war. Sorry, but that one is over.... We are in serious need of some flip floppers!!!!!

There was a time when terrorism never made it to our shores, and those who plotted to do us harm were "mitigated" on other continents through a well-formed and effective intelligence/operations program. It took decades in some cases to build that program, and only one-and-a-half administrations to dismantle it. The rebuild is underway, but that will take quite a while, and in the meantime while that rebuild is ongoing, we're stuck doing the job in a more costly manner. While that may not be popular, it's the way it is.

I have yet to meet the veteran who wants his/her offspring to experience the hell of combat. However, I'd rather a candidate who was honest enough to tell the people the truth of what it's going to take to fix what got us into this War on Terrorism, than coddle everyone with fairy-tales of how the world will be a better place if we just talk with everyone and kiss their backsides.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

There was a time when terrorism never made it to our shores, and those who plotted to do us harm were "mitigated" on other continents through a well-formed and effective intelligence/operations program. It took decades in some cases to build that program, and only one-and-a-half administrations to dismantle it. The rebuild is underway, but that will take quite a while, and in the meantime while that rebuild is ongoing, we're stuck doing the job in a more costly manner. While that may not be popular, it's the way it is.

I have yet to meet the veteran who wants his/her offspring to experience the hell of combat. However, I'd rather a candidate who was honest enough to tell the people the truth of what it's going to take to fix what got us into this War on Terrorism, than coddle everyone with fairy-tales of how the world will be a better place if we just talk with everyone and kiss their backsides.

Steve,

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I simply think that our politicians (especially the republicans) have a pre-9/11 way of thinking. Maybe it is because most Jewish people are generally democrats, and they have a tad bit more experience at this then we do, but the way we are doing it now is "Tactically Incorrect". There is no need to make this a 100 year war. (And yes, there are right wing democrats like the Clintons and Lieberman who are equally wrong)...

Not to mention, Iraq was never about Terrorism. It was about Freedmen Economics. When 9/11 happened our country was in shock, and the administration enacted a plan that they had already discussed for several years to take advantage of our vulnerability and get us into Iraq. The Project for a New American Century (the neo-con think tank that the administration came from) published a paper in September of 2000 that said that this country needed another Pearl Harbor to shock this country into carrying out their new military model, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (http://www.informationclearinghouse....asDefenses.pdf). 9/11 was an opportunity for them. On September 10, 2001, Rummy addressed the Pentagon and laid out his new vision for the organization (which involved privatizing health care, computer support, etc. all part of the Freedman model). (http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...x?speechid=430) This was going to be a long process, and after 9/11, this was all accomplished in a matter of a couple of weeks. ( Further, as soon as we went in, Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order # 39 allowing for foreign investors to come into Iraq, buy up all its resources, and keep the money for themselves (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulat...nvestment_.pdf). Further, the contract for the consultants to help 'reorganize' Iraq to be the economic model that they wanted to prove could work was signed July 2003 (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/...aringPoint.pdf).

Well there are a lot of conspiracy nuts out there, my general rule is simply to look at the facts and draw sound conclusions. I read the stuff that everyone has to say, research the contracts that they issue, and pay attention to their advisers. All of the stuff I am saying I can back up with official documentation. Bottom line is, if we support our troops (and I do) we only use them when it is necessary for them to defend the US. We don't use them to make money or to experiment with other people's countries. I think that this is the reason that with this war, you either support the war OR the troops, but I do not believe it is possible to do both. This war was about economics not security. It was illegal, immoral, and we should get our people out of there as quickly as possible. Let the contractors fight their own battles...

That "100 year" comment by McCain has been way overblown. It was meant in the context that we will stay as long as it takes to get Iraqis on their feet so they can defend and govern themselves. I understand the criticism of the war the way it was being strategized at the beginning. However, now it has turned around greatly, thanks to Petraeus and many others. God Bless our boys in uniform. They are committed and bright young folks. What I don't understand is all the criticism still going on now. Somebody made a comment the other day about whiners. I think I agree ! As for me, I'm going to count my blessings.

Originally Posted by golfpro

That "100 year" comment by McCain has been way overblown. It was meant in the context that we will stay as long as it takes to get Iraqis on their feet so they can defend and govern themselves. I understand the criticism of the war the way it was being strategized at the beginning. However, now it has turned around greatly, thanks to Petraeus and many others. God Bless our boys in uniform. They are committed and bright young folks. What I don't understand is all the criticism still going on now. Somebody made a comment the other day about whiners. I think I agree ! As for me, I'm going to count my blessings.

It has turned around for two reasons:

1. When the troops role in, the resistance fighters put their guns in their closet and wait for the next opportunity.
2. Many outside fighters have left Iraq and gone to Afghanistan where they are now gaining ground against us.
3. Many Iraqis have decided to stop fighting us because their president is saying that he wants the US out very quickly. Once this government steps in, why risk it yourself. And from the sounds of it, we may leave, this morning the RNC guy said starting September we may begin a withdrawal.
4. It doesn't matter if one solder is dieing a month or 1,000 if that one is your father. If our troops do not need to be there (as a necessity of national security), then every one that dies, dies as a result of mis-justice. I have a friend in Germany who is processing the bodies coming out of Iraq, and he is still busy!

You can call it whining, I call it being a voice for our troops. If they are willing to place their lives in the hands of the government, we, as the people, have a moral duty to make sure that the government is not wasting them. Just as I hope they will never let me down, I refuse to let them down as well....

As a vet, I would hope that you could appreciate that stance...

And now we're sending soldiers into Columbia! This is way out of hand. Bring our troops home. Whatever happened to "We, the people ..."

This is a disheartening thread. Let's go back to discussing flip flops. I've heard they are bad for your feet. Causes the arches to fall and all that.